From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.saout.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.saout.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsIKgtSjRECi for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail01.freesources.org (mail01.freesources.org [80.237.252.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ip-94-79-161-2.unitymediagroup.de ([94.79.161.2] helo=[192.168.0.110]) by mail01.freesources.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh1ZL-0005Vg-EG for dm-crypt@saout.de; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:46:21 +0000 Message-ID: <4FE0ACDA.8040302@freesources.org> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:46:18 +0200 From: Jonas Meurer MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FE05A32.9010402@gresille.org> <4FE061DE.5080200@gmail.com> <55fcb858bc6943ac636a50cf12706871@imap.freesources.org> <4FE0A548.7030007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE0A548.7030007@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Option "validate passphrase" for command cryptsetup List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de Hey Milan, Am 19.06.2012 18:14, schrieb Milan Broz: > On 06/19/2012 05:04 PM, jonas wrote: > >> if I'm not wrong, one difference between Louis' suggestion and the way >> you implemented it is, that the former works with active devices, and >> the latter doesn't, right? > > No, it is exactly the same. It works even for active devices. > (Check for active device is later.) great to hear that I was wrong ;) >> I like the idea of a --dry-run option which works for all commands, >> just like a simulation mode. But as well I like the idea of a command >> for key validation, which takes the same commandline options as >> luksOpen, and simply verifies whether the given key (passphrase, >> keyfile, whatever) is valid. > > Well, universal --dry-run is nice idea but I am not going to implement it now. > (and I would perhaps do it differently - do everything as is except final > on-disk metadata update or in-kernel device change.) Now that my concerns above are proved wrong I don't consider support for global --dry-run option that important anymore. > Well, I have local commit renaming this luksOpen option to --test-passphrase. > If there are no other suggestions for today, I'll commit it. > > Milan > (grumbling something about bikeshedding :-) To make it even worse: I don't consider --test-passphrase a good name for the option. But I don't care that much about names either. Regards, jonas