On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:50:54PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Artem Savkov <asav...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > IMO, the preferable fix depends on your future plan. > > > > If you plan to continue using both ANSI X9.31 DRNG and DRBG - I agree > > > > with the > > > > patch suggested by Artem Savkov. > > > > If you plan to reduce using ANSI X9.31 DRNG and use DRBG more widely - I > > > > suggest my patch. > > > > > > No such plans, TBH. > > > > I agre with Kirill here, so if we are not trying to reduce ANSI X9.31 > > DRNG usage can we move on with the suggested patch, or are there any > > issues with it that need addressing? > > Which suggested patch? One of Kirill's (there are at least two) or yours?
I suggest mine, since it is more flexible. > Note that we *also* need the "KEYS: Sort out big_key initialisation" patch - > just changing the Kconfig is not sufficient a fix in and of itself. Right, I see it also changes the Kconfig, so we might be better off with v2 of "KEYS: Sort out big_key initialisation" with "depends on (CRYPTO_ANSI_CPRNG = y || CRYPTO_DRBG = y)" in Kconfig. -- Regards, Artem
