Re: [PATCH]

[Jean-Luc Cooke]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 08:36:23PM -0700, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
> In article <Xine.LNX.4.44.0408052245380.20516-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:47:12 -0400 (EDT)), James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> 
> > > Would you be against a patch to cryptoapi to have access to a
> > > non-scatter-list set of calls?
> :
> > level.  Can you demonstrate a compelling need for raw access to the
> > algorithms via the API?
> 
> I would use them for
>  - Privacy Extensions (RFC3041) support
>  - upcoming TCP MD5 signature (RFC2385) support
> since I don't see the advantage(s) of sg for allocated memories there.

Thank you for your input.  But please read this note in the RFC2385:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2385.html
 "Section 4.4: MD5 as a Hashing Algorithm"
 It talks about MD5 as an insecure algorithm and how changing it would
 require a new RFC, which make me sad.
 If you could add support for SHA-1 as well that would be nifty.
 
James,
  Back to your question:
    I want to replace the legacy MD5 and the incorrectly implemented SHA-1
    implementations from driver/char/random.c

Thanks, cheers!

JLC
-
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/