Mr. Spambox:
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree. Patching a kernel
is not a simple process when juxtaposed against all the different
distributions out there. As well there really isn't any disadvantage to
modules. Nevertheless, even so, lets consider this:
Even if what you did was have the code in the main kernel tree,
patching in the actual algorithms after the function definition and before
the "return statement" would be quite a simple process, since every kernel
would look the same (when unpatched) no matter what distribution you had.
Since presumably most of the different distributions are not writing or
putzing with the part of the kernel at all.
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 5:08 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: spambox [mailto:spambox@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:05 PM
To: stuart@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Using Crypto under LM8+2.4.6
> There is a "one-better" solution. If the kernel were integrated
with
> all the links to have crypto, and dummy crypto modules were supplied (that
> did nothing with the clear text, basically passing back exactly what it
> receives), then all that would be necessary is to replace the bogus
modules
> with real modules to gain crypto abilities.
"modules" <= not everyone likes modules so the tree should be patched so
that everyone can compile it to whatever he likes ;)
Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
