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
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) A cut-down MPI library derived from GPG with error handling added.
Do we really need to add this?
I presume you mean the MPI library specifically? If so, then yes. It's
necessary to do DSA signature verification (or RSA for that matter).
Michael Halcrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, eCryptfs just delegates its modular exponentiation
operations to a userspace daemon. If RSA ever finds its way into the
kernel, I might tweak eCryptfs to use that instead for some of the
public key operations.
Am I right in thinking that
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:59:37PM +, David Howells wrote:
Michael Halcrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, eCryptfs just delegates its modular exponentiation
operations to a userspace daemon. If RSA ever finds its way into the
kernel, I might tweak eCryptfs to use that instead for
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:09:38 + David Howells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These patches provide a GPG-based kernel module signing facility. Their use
is
not fully automated within the confines of the kernel build process because it
needs provision of keys from outside of the kernel before
