linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 00/23] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel

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]

Message-ID: <CAHmME9piX1kbUhOBcUKVdecr45EjxuruxYuMTepfXVvRrkVmyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:45:20 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 00/23] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel

Hi Herbert,

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:39 AM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > I would also strongly prefer that all crypto work is taken through
> > Herbert's tree, so we have a coherent view of it before it goes
> > upstream.
>
> I agree.  I don't have any problems with the zinc code living in
> its own git tree.  But any upstream merges should definitely go
> through the crypto tree because the inherent ties between the two
> code-base.

I can send you pull requests then if there are development cycles when
there are in fact relations between the two trees. I'll update the
commit message describing Zinc to include this.

Jason