[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qLPxVSypcMECUjNeFz8qeUpeDe-LiXFoZTBYnGW9=ukQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:54:05 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
"open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
Fernando Gont <fgont@...networks.com>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 2/3] ipv6: move from sha1 to blake2s in address calculation
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 2:50 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Then, at some point down the road, we can talk about removing
> > CONFIG_NET_OBSOLETE_INSECURE_ADDRCONF_HASH too.
> >
>
> What is the point of having CONFIG_OLD_N_CRUSTY if all distros are
> going to enable it indefinitely?
I think there's probably some combination of
CONFIG_NET_OBSOLETE_INSECURE_ADDRCONF_HASH and CONFIG_OLD_N_CRUSTY and
maybe even a CONFIG_GOD_MURDERS_KITTENS that might be sufficiently
disincentivizing? Or this ties into other general ideas on a gradual
obsolescence->removal flow for things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists