On Thu, April 12, 2007 11:35, Satyam Sharma wrote:
Because it can all be done in userspace? Can trap all binary loading from
user-space too, though that must be done carefully, without changing the
kernel.
It's still RSA, that it's not enough to get a complete and secure crypto
system doesn't mean it isn't RSA anymore. Maybe you're right and having
RSA without the rest makes no sense. But things like padding schemes change,
the core RSA algorithm does't, so I think when adding anything that's unused
by the rest of the kernel it has more chance if it's a low maintenance bare
RSA implementation.
Right, and that MPI implementation isn't merged. Perhaps a smaller, simpler,
not complexified by optimisations version has more chance. RSA is damn slow
anyway, so better to concentrate on other things than speed, IMHO.
That said, perhaps the different groups could concentrate on one implementation
they all agree on? That's the main advantage of having it mainline, that there's
a common place to cencentrate all effort into.
But keep in mind that it's a precaurious balance, at least that's how I see it.
Right now it's about a rather static 800 lines of code which implements some
common algorithms. Not much bloat, low maintenance, over all not much reason
to not merge it, except that it isn't used by the rest of the kernel.
If you're going to add the full kitchen sink, it might not look that appealing
anymore, and merging it will become much harder, especially as no one provided
good arguments why it can't be done in user space.
Perhaps, with that in mind, it's better to not merge the bare RSA version either,
as it might give false hope for more, because it looks like most implementations
should be done in user space (either because that's better anyway, or because of
legal reasons).
Greetings,
Indan
-
