On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 09:59:01AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:

Jason,
have you previously produced a list of reasoned concerns with this
patchset and direction?

This specific email is not really useful to me to understand the
concerns as it does not contain actionable suggestion or critique.

I personally find the direction fine, and with my distribution hat on I
can say that FIPS is essential for us and any design must include an
option to be FIPS certifiable.

As NIST keeps improving their testing capabilities and rigorous
cryptographic design of the CSPRNGs as well as entropy sources the
kernel must also adapt.

Stephan is providing a path forward, and I haven't seen any other
proposal, let alone code, that provide improvements in this area.
I am pretty sure the design can be improved if there is detailed and
actionable feedback on what to change.

I hope the path forward can be one of collaboration rather then mere
opposition.

Replacement of the existing code to cut over to the new one is not
collaboration, it's the exact opposite.

Submitting patches to the existing codebase to implement the
"requirements" is the proper way forward, why has that never been done.

Remember, evolution is the correct way of kernel development, not
intelligent design :)

thanks,

greg k-h