Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-10-04 Thread Herbert Xu
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:42:46AM +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > Well if James is OK with adding the user for this then I'm fine > > with adding the necessary infrastructure. > > Are you happy with the API? As there is only one user, we can add whateve

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-29 Thread Kasatkin, Dmitry
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:42 AM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Herbert Xu wrote: > >> Well if James is OK with adding the user for this then I'm fine >> with adding the necessary infrastructure. > > Are you happy with the API? > > > -- > James Morris > > Hello, One comment earlier

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-28 Thread James Morris
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Herbert Xu wrote: > Well if James is OK with adding the user for this then I'm fine > with adding the necessary infrastructure. Are you happy with the API? -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-28 Thread Herbert Xu
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:37:34PM +0300, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:15 AM, James Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote: > > > >> It seems nobody wants to share their thoughts about it? > >> Does this silence mean acceptance? > >> Should I prepare f

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-28 Thread Kasatkin, Dmitry
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:15 AM, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote: > >> It seems nobody wants to share their thoughts about it? >> Does this silence mean acceptance? >> Should I prepare final patches for merge? > > Not yet. > > I'd like to hear what the crypto folk

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-26 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote: > It seems nobody wants to share their thoughts about it? > Does this silence mean acceptance? > Should I prepare final patches for merge? Not yet. I'd like to hear what the crypto folk think about the crypto. -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-26 Thread Kasatkin, Dmitry
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 17:20 +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Changes to version 2.0: >> - MPI patch has been split to smaller in order to go to mailing lists. >>   First 2 patches include only source and header files which are neede

Re: [RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-20 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 17:20 +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > Hello, > > Changes to version 2.0: > - MPI patch has been split to smaller in order to go to mailing lists. > First 2 patches include only source and header files which are needed > to build ksign verification. Headers and sources ar

[RFC v2.1 0/6] evm: digital signature verification extension

2011-09-13 Thread Dmitry Kasatkin
Hello, Changes to version 2.0: - MPI patch has been split to smaller in order to go to mailing lists. First 2 patches include only source and header files which are needed to build ksign verification. Headers and sources are split just to meet 100k kernel.org limit. Last patch adds all res