Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Aug 2003 09:05:42 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional? |
| |
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@selenic.com> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |