Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Max Vozeler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:51:04PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > even more if it is loop-aes which show a long history of
> > hostily of the module owner versus linux-2.6 upstream.
> That's not true.
> There are several reasons why loop-AES has not been merged
> upstream, and has very little chance of getting upstream in the
> current form at all.
> But hostility of the loop-AES upstream author towards linux-2.6
> upstream is definately not the case. I'd like to ask you to take
> more care before making such statements.
boah just search lmkl for one minute and you find plenty of examples.
> Anyways, on a constructive point, looking forward:
> I'm about to submit a patchset that adds support for the loop-AES
> crypto modes to the upstream kernel, so that it can be used with
> plain dm-crypt and cryptsetup.
> I hope this will reduce the need for using the OOT module in the
> medium term, and will allow us in d-i to drop the reliance on the
> OOT module builds for fully featured crypto support.
that is a sound idea and something that it's author should have
prioritised from day 1.
work with in tree kernel crypto implementation is the road forward.
the author got told this years ago: