Re: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?

["Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com>]

On 4/17/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:01:51PM +0200, Francis Moreau (francis.moro@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >Yep.  We don't need such a flag anyway.  All we need is a way to tweak
> > >the priority and Bob's your uncle.
> > >
> >
> > Could you elaborate please, I don't see how you prevent others users
> > to use this module with priority.
> >
> > Priority is a stuff that tells you which aes implementation to use but
> > it does not prevent an implementation to be used several times...
>
> Preventing anyone from using the module is incorrect.
> How will you handle the case when you have only one algo registered and
> it will be exclusively used by ecryptfs?
>

As I tried to explain, in that case the admin must load the module
without the exclusive flag.

> Herbert proposes to register _second_ algo (say aes-generic(prio_100)
> and aes_for_ecryptfs(prio_1)) with lower prio, so generic access will
> never try to catch aes_for_ecryptfs, but your code still can access it
> using full name.
>

yes but my worries with this approach is that nothing prevent an admin
to load others modules that will use aes_for_ecryptfs. And an admin is
not always aware about a module implementation.

Thanks
-- 
Francis