Mr. Johannknecht, et al.: By having a website like "kerneli.org", and having it linked up to kernel.org (an official kernel site), people are getting a very powerful and distinct message that the I-patch is in fact an official release. That is why people see it how they do. If you do not think there is an "official" crypto stuff kernel, go look at the site. Anyone whom went to see it for the first time would a very strong feeling its official, so I think your being a bit obstinate to think otherwise. I (and I presume others) am a miss as to why if code can be written independently of the kernel, why no one can integrate it into the kernel. After all, I OWN MY COMPUTER, and if feel that a kernel patch outweighs only have a single piece of functionality (just loop back aes) then it is my choice to make. Nevertheless, we should get whatever "fixes" you speak of integrated into the I-patch as well. Whatever strategy you choose "less-code" or "more kernel", the choices ought to exist for individuals to make, that is my point. In addition, those choices ought to be integrated into the I-patch. Now how terrible is the I-patch? Well let us evaluate the issues: a) You must have SMP to appreciate the re-entrant code problem, and even if that were not true, as per the author of the I-patch, it will soon be resolved in the next release b) IV problem: well this can easily be worked around by issuing a mkfs command specifying a block size which is conducive (4096 I think, or 512 I forget which) to the I-patch Oh my, look what happened, no more bugs! Can it be? Maybe the I-patch is not broken! Very Respectfully, Stuart Blake Tener, IT3, USNR-R, N3GWG VTU 1904G (Volunteer Training Unit) stuart@xxxxxxxxxxx west coast: (310)-358-0202 P.O. Box 16043, Beverly Hills, CA 90209-2043 east coast: (215)-338-6005 P.O. Box 45859, Philadelphia, PA 19149-5859 Telecopier: (419)-715-6073 fax to email gateway via www.efax.com (it's free!) JOIN THE US NAVY RESERVE, SERVE YOUR COUNTRY, AND BENEFIT FROM IT ALL. Monday, July 09, 2001 4:12 PM -----Original Message----- From: owner-linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Hauke Johannknecht Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 2:41 PM To: linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Announce loop-AES-v1.3b file crypto package On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, peter k. wrote: > why dont you understand that its necessary to have 'official' crypto stuff > for the kernel rather than telling everyone who asks for crypto that the > official crypto sux and that he should use loop-AES?!!? why dont you understand that there is no "official" crypto stuff? who decides which of the varying implementations is the "official" one? so far none of them got integrated into the main kernel tree. the loopAES package actualy is a "fix" for the main problem of the int-patch (ie the problems when applying it), if you can live with the reduced featureset (ie all you want is loopback-encryption). (this is getting a religious discussion. i still prefer the "less code"-strategy.) Gruss, Hauke -- Hauke Johannknecht Berlin / Germany HJ422-RIPE Use PGP ! -> lynx -dump http://www.ash.de/ash.asc | pgp -kaf Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/ Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
