Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional?

Robert Love
2003-08-10T04:01:49Z

On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 20:49, David S. Miller wrote:

> I definitely agree, removing the integrity of random.c is not
> an option. Even things inside the kernel itself rely upon
> get_random_bytes() for anti-DoS measures.

OK, fair enough. I liked the idea because it let things stay optional,
but also gave us no excuse not to merge Matt's changes.

I would have no problem requiring cryptoapi, but what if it increases in
size? Requiring a large (and definitely oft-used for many people)
feature isn't size, either.

Robert Love