On 3 October 2018 at 08:12, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:56:10PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> These NEON and non-NEON implementations come from Andy Polyakov's >> implementation, and are included here in raw form without modification, >> so that subsequent commits that fix these up for the kernel can see how >> it has changed. This awkward commit splitting has been requested for the >> ARM[64] implementations in particular. >> "This awkward commit splitting" Seriously?!? So you really think it is fine to import huge chunks of code like this from other projects without keeping track of the local changes? >> While this is CRYPTOGAMS code, the originating code for this happens to >> be the same as OpenSSL's commit 5bb1cd2292b388263a0cc05392bb99141212aa53 > > Sorry to ruin the fun, but actually there are no Poly1305 implementations in > CRYPTOGAMS (https://github.com/dot-asm/cryptogams). Nor are there any ChaCha20 > implementations. > So was this code taken directly from the OpenSSL project then? If so, why do the commit messages claim otherwise? > Andy P., can you please add your Poly1305 and ChaCha20 implementations to the > CRYPTOGAMS repository, so that they have a clear kernel-compatible license? > > It would be great if you'd include a kernel-compatible license directly in the > versions in the OpenSSL tree too... > Yes please.
