From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: dm-crypt IV generation (summary) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:37:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20170406143746.GA19500@redhat.com> References: <20170406092957.GA31341@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170406092957.GA31341@gondor.apana.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Herbert Xu Cc: Binoy Jayan , Ondrej Mosnacek , Gilad Ben-Yossef , dm-devel@redhat.com, Mikulas Patocka , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Milan Broz , Alasdair Kergon List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Thu, Apr 06 2017 at 5:29am -0400, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:44:26PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I was tasked to post a summary the whole dm-crypt IV generation > > problem and all the suggested solutions along with their drawbacks, so > > here it goes... > > Thanks for the summary. It looks good to me. There were 4 different solutions presented. In reading each, option 2 looked the most promising. BUT it requires a tradeoff/decision to be made, please see my earlier reply where I asked for your (and/or Milan's) thoughts: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg24586.html Thanks, Mike