* Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos | 2010-06-11 09:47:15 [+0200]: >Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> * Phil Sutter | 2010-06-10 20:22:29 [+0200]: > >The problem with right or wrong is that they are only known afterwards. >For me the right way to go is _to go_. I can see discussions in this >least, years ago on talks about the "perfect" userspace crypto api and >rejections implementations because they are not perfect enough. I don't >believe there is such thing as a perfect crypto api. Other operating >systems have a userspace crypto API (maybe not perfect) but linux >hasn't. I don't think this is the way to go. Phil asked me for my opinion and he got it. The fundumention problems from what I've seen was the interface: - kernel structs which are exposed to userland which limit the parameters. For instance the iv was limited to 16 bytes while we have allready algos with a much longer iv. - the interface was using write()/poll()/read() and get_user_pages(). I pointed out Herbert's opinion about this and the alternative. So this _was_ allready discsussed. >regards, >Nikos Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
