Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932471AbXBNT0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:26:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932487AbXBNT0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:26:46 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:41196 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932471AbXBNT0p (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:26:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:26:26 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Howells cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, herbert.xu@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com, arjan@infradead.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing In-Reply-To: <20070214190938.6438.15091.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20070214190938.6438.15091.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 730 Lines: 22 On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, David Howells wrote: > > (1) A cut-down MPI library derived from GPG with error handling added. Do we really need to add this? Wouldn't it be much nicer to just teach people to use one of the existing signature things that we need for _other_ cases anyway, and already have merged? (Of course, it's possible that none of the current crypto supports any signature checking at all - I didn't actually look. In which case my argument is pointless). Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/