Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't quite understand all these indirections. What's the problem > with just having a helper that builds the scatterlist for you?
I was trying to avoid building a scatterlist completely. There's not much point because the scatterlist approach involves finding out the page struct and then kmapping it just so that the FCrypt algorithm can read 8 or 16 bytes of data from kernel space. Why do that if we can avoid it? It's a waste of processing time, and has to be done on every secure packet. > We allow dma access to arbitary pieces of _dynamically_ allocated kernel > memory, and I think using the crypto subsystem on the stack is not allowed > at all. FCrypt is only available in software as far as I know. For producing and checking packet signatures, using hardware support would be a waste of time as the size of the crunched data is so small (a single 8-byte fragment per packet). > But the even bigger question is, how does this relate to rxrpc? RxRPC has security features, up to and including full packet content encryption if you select it. > very odd line split It's not really odd. The "static" and "inline" don't actually add anything to the function template. They're merely scope limiters / optimisation controllers, and so make a lot of sense placed on their own line. David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html