[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] CryptoAPI & Compression
    On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:41:07PM +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
    > I also wonder, does it at all correct to use negative windowBits in
    > crypto API? I mean, if windowBits is negative, zlib doesn't produce the

    It's absolutely correct for IPComp. For other uses it may or may not
    be correct.

    For instance for JFFS2 it's absolutely incorrect since it breaks
    compatibility. Incidentally, JFFS should create a new compression
    type that doesn't include the zlib header so that we don't need the
    head-skipping speed hack.

    > proper zstream header, which is incorrect according to RFC-1950. It also

    Can you please point me to the paragraph in RFC 1950 that says this?

    > Isn't it conceptually right to produce *correct* zstream, with the
    > header and the proper adler32 ?

    Not really. However it should be possible if the user needs it which
    is why we should make windowBits configurable.

    > Yes, for JFFS2 we would like to have no adler32, we anyway protect our
    > data by CRC32. But I suppose this should be an additional feature.

    Yes, I'd love to see a patch that makes windowBits configurable in

    Visit Openswan at
    Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
    Home Page:
    PGP Key:
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.025 / U:3.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site