![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > This is ugly as hell. If we decided to add it it really needs a major > cleanup, fitting into linux style and removal of unused functionality, > the assembly bits needs to move to an asm/ header, etc. Which would make it harder to compare against the original, and so potentially harder to track bug fixes in the original was my thinking. > But to be honest I'd say anything that requires bigints shouldn't go into > the kernel at all. Could someone explain why they want dsa support in > kernelspace? Well... I'd like to revisit module signing at some point, though I imagine it'll cause the LKML to melt again by those who think that I shouldn't have the right to sign my modules because they imagine it impinges on their rights:-) But I suspect the reason David wants this is so that he can encrypt something with keys that he's not actually permitted to retrieve directly. David? David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-27 20:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||