Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional?

[Matt Mackall]

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 01:04:18AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 02:44:59 -0500
> Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The attached (lightly tested) patch gets rid of the SHA in the
> > /dev/random code and replaces it with cryptoapi, leaving us with just
> > one SHA implementation.
>  ...
> >  __u32 secure_tcp_syn_cookie(__u32 saddr, __u32 daddr, __u16 sport,
> >  		__u16 dport, __u32 sseq, __u32 count, __u32 data)
>  ...
> > +	tfm = crypto_alloc_tfm("sha1", 0);
> 

> This patch needs tons of work.

Yes, it's completely bogus. It also needs tons of error-checking, etc.
All of which is a big waste of time if the answer to "is making
cryptoapi mandatory ok?" is no. So before embarking on the hard part,
I thought I'd ask the hard question.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/