netdev - 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]

Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:39:08 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jason@...c4.com, ebiggers@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 00/23] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel

Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 28 September 2018 at 07:46, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
>> If an implementation enters Zinc, it will go through my tree. If it
>> enters the crypto API, it will go through Herbert's tree. If there
>> wind up being messy tree dependency and merge timing issues, I can
>> work this out in the usual way with Herbert. I'll be sure to discuss
>> these edge cases with him when we discuss. I think there's a way to
>> handle that with minimum friction.
> 
> 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.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt