From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: remove speck Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 23:15:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20180807031526.GD5048@thunk.org> References: <20180806223300.113891-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20180806230437.21431-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180807011937.GA133621@gmail.com> <20180807031237.GA779@sol.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Greg Kaiser , Herbert Xu , Samuel Neves , Michael Halcrow , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Tomer Ashur , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Paul Crowley To: Eric Biggers Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180807031237.GA779@sol.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:12:38PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > I mention this because people are naturally going to be curious about that, e.g. > speculating that Google found a "backdoor" -- remember that we do have some good > cryptographers! I'm just stating what we know, out of honesty and openness; I > don't really intend to be arguing for Speck with this statement, and in any case > we already made the decision to not use Speck. Let's be clear --- the arguments about whether or not to use Speck, and whether or not to remove Speck from the kernel, are purely political --- not techinical. - Ted