Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:07:01 +1100
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     bfields@fieldses.org, trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/18] crypto: Add generic Kerberos library
Message-ID: <20201127050701.GA22001@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20201126063303.GA18366@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <160518586534.2277919.14475638653680231924.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1976719.1606378781@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1976719.1606378781@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 08:19:41AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
>
> I haven't done that yet.  Sorry, I should've been more explicit with what I
> was after.  I was wanting to find out if the nfs/nfsd people are okay with
> this (and if there are any gotchas I should know about - it turns out, if I
> understand it correctly, the relevant code may being being rewritten a bit
> anyway).
> 
> And from you, I was wanting to find out if you're okay with an interface of
> this kind in crypto/ where the code is just used directly - or whether I'll
> be required to wrap it up in the autoloading, module-handling mechanisms.

I don't have any problems with it living under crypto.  However,
I'd like to see what the sunrpc code looks like before going one
way or another.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt