Hi Alexei,
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:45 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:27 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 1/13/22, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Nack.
> > > It's part of api. We cannot change it.
> >
> > This is an RFC patchset, so there's no chance that it'll actually be
> > applied as-is, and hence there's no need for the strong hammer nack.
> > The point of "request for comments" is comments. Specifically here,
> > I'm searching for information on the ins and outs of *why* it might be
> > hard to change. How does userspace use this? Why must this 64-bit
> > number be unchanged? Why did you do things this way originally? Etc.
> > If you could provide a bit of background, we might be able to shake
> > out a solution somewhere in there.
>
> There is no problem with the code and nothing to be fixed.
"Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me."
The "problem" is that this is one of the few last users of SHA-1 in
the kernel.
Can you please answer the questions above, so we can get a better
understanding?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
