Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> 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 [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]
