linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 28/28] net: 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]

Date:   Fri, 26 Oct 2018 01:59:03 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     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 v8 28/28] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

Hi Andrew,

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:37 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> I can understand that. But on the flip side, CAKE reached something
> like version 19 before it got merged. Wireguard is looking similar.
> An addition like the above, is not controversial. You could submit
> such a single patch in a weeks time when net-next reopens, and
> probably version 1 or 2 will get accepted.

Alright, maybe I'll give it a try that way. Previously, every time I
wanted to send things upstream for WireGuard, I'd be sure to find
other users in the tree of what I was adding, since WireGuard wasn't
ready for patchsets yet. But I guess now that some series have begun,
it's more acceptable to add APIs here and there as you described.

Jason