Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Resolving the crypto duplicity... Message-ID: <39612.1075970760@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:07:06 PST." <20040204160446.F96240@carver.gumbysoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20040204160446.F96240@carver.gumbysoft.com>, Doug White writes: >On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> >> I'm just using Rijndael/AES for illustration, the same issues apply >> to various other algorithms. >> >> Right now we have identical (apart from some trivial details) of the >> AES algorithms in the kernel: >> >> [1] src/sys/crypto/rijndael/* >> [ipsec, random and geom_bde options] >> >> [2] arc/sys/opencrypto/rijndael.? >> [crypto] > >You'd have to go back to the original discussion, but I though that we >decided to go with this to avoid complicating KAME imports. > >Just trying to inject some history into the discussion :) I realize that, but for something as generic as specific cryptographic algorithms, I do not think that is a valid argument for having two implementations in the kernel, particularly not for a case like the AES implementation which is line-for-line identical. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39612.1075970760>