From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266808AbUGVFrw (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:47:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266812AbUGVFrw (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:47:52 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:44433 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266808AbUGVFrv (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:47:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:46:49 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: dpf-lkml@fountainbay.com Cc: jmorris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete cryptoloop Message-Id: <20040722014649.309bc26f.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <4411.24.6.231.172.1090470409.squirrel@24.6.231.172> References: <20040721230044.20fdc5ec.akpm@osdl.org> <4411.24.6.231.172.1090470409.squirrel@24.6.231.172> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org dpf-lkml@fountainbay.com wrote: > > Hopefully someone else will follow up, but I hope I'm somewhat convincing: Not really ;) Your points can be simplified to "I don't use cryptoloop, but someone else might" and "we shouldn't do this in a stable kernel". Well, I want to hear from "someone else". If removing cryptoloop will irritate five people, well, sorry. If it's 5,000 people, well maybe not. Yes, I buy the "stable kernel" principle, but here we have an example where it conflicts with the advancement of the kernel, and we need to make a judgement call. Actually, my most serious concern with cryptoloop is the claim that it is insufficiently secure. If this is true then we'd be better off removing the feature altogether rather than (mis)leading our users into thinking that their data is secure.