On Pá 25-03-05 17:13:11, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:16:01AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 00:58 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > If its disabled by default, then you and 2-3 other people will use this
> > > feature. Not enough justification for a kernel API at that point.
> >
> > It is only because there are only couple of HW crypto devices
> > in the tree, with one crypto framework inclusion there will be
> > at least redouble.
>
> You missed the point. This has nothing to do with the crypto API.
> Jeff is saying that if this is disabled by default, then only a few
> users will enable it and therefore use this API.
>
> Since we can't afford to enable it by default as hardware RNG may
> fail which can lead to catastrophic consequences, there is no point
> for this API at all.
What catastrophic consequences? Noone is likely to even *notice*, and
it does not help practical attack at all. Unless hardware RNGs are
*very* flakey (like, more flakey than harddrives), this is not a problem.
I can assure you that failing hdd will have more catastrophic
consequences.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
