linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Add support for architectural random hooks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:20:36 -1000
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Add support for architectural random hooks

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> wrote:
>
> Did you even look at these patches?

Umm. My exact point about the email was that we should if anything
change Peter's patch *away* from some kind of abstracted driver
interface. But that was what you were arguing for, and that was what I
was dismissing.

So when you argue for not taking the patches because you want a
generic interface, I tell you that the argument is bogus.

Now, if you now argue that we should make it closer, and not take
Peter's patches for *that* reason, then I'd be in whole-hearted
agreement with you.

Which way is it?

                Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/