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

[Robert Love]

On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 20:49, David S. Miller wrote:

> I definitely agree, removing the integrity of random.c is not
> an option.  Even things inside the kernel itself rely upon
> get_random_bytes() for anti-DoS measures.

OK, fair enough.  I liked the idea because it let things stay optional,
but also gave us no excuse not to merge Matt's changes.

I would have no problem requiring cryptoapi, but what if it increases in
size?  Requiring a large (and definitely oft-used for many people)
feature isn't size, either.

	Robert Love


-
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/