[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2187237.1763455154@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:39:14 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
"Jason A .
Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/9] crypto: Add ML-DSA/Dilithium verify support
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:
> But even if you don't accept that, Google keeps effective joint
> ownership of the code through their CLA and so could grant a dual
> licence to the kernel anyway without needing to refer to any
> contributors.
Actually, the fact that BoringSSL's ML-DSA implementation uses C++ with heavy
use of integer-parametered templating is more insurmountable for borrowing
their code. Yes, it does allow them to reduce their LoC to ~3000 and is much
more readable, but I can't do that in C. Now, if we want to work on
persuading Linus to allow C++ into the kernel...
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists