On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:58:49PM +0200, Adrian-Ken Rüegsegger wrote:
quoted text
>
> I agree that 96bit truncation is obsolete and 128 bit should be used.
> However people might be using the current implementation and this patch
> could cause trouble for them. The question is if anybody really depends
> on the current behavior.

I think the way we're currently representing the truncation length
is not ideal.  We should move over to the way it's done for AEAD
algorithms, i.e., let user-space supply us with the truncation
length.  That way the problem lies with them :) More importantly,
this would allows us to support multiple truncation lengths.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/