From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <glkdd-dm-crypt@m.gmane.org>
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.server123.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:36:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
 (envelope-from <glkdd-dm-crypt@m.gmane.org>) id 1aTVsR-00029o-8v
 for dm-crypt@saout.de; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:36:19 +0100
Received: from c-50-158-72-35.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([50.158.72.35])
 by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
 id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:36:19 +0100
Received: from rnicholsNOSPAM by c-50-158-72-35.hsd1.il.comcast.net with local
 (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:36:19 +0100
From: Robert Nichols <rnicholsNOSPAM@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:35:48 -0600
Message-ID: <n9fhs5$13t$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAFnMBaRfu93jkgmZ_vLDChF7Uv-dCE6dNN6YkSxU3EFvn8iHtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B20C05.7080307@gmail.com> <56B90DDD.1080107@gmail.com>
 <56BA6353.7080207@tu-ilmenau.de> <20160209233532.GB21086@tansi.org>
 <56BAF6B5.4060300@gmail.com> <56BB3FC0.5020409@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <56BB3FC0.5020409@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de>
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] The future of disk encryption with LUKS2
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt/>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: dm-crypt@saout.de

On 02/10/2016 07:48 AM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
> BTW: Personally I think that one thing in the blockdevice stack was
> screwed up severely: Always have information on the upper layer in the
> lower layer - That would eliminate most issues. On the lowest layer we
> do have that information (PARTUUID/PARTTYPE), it is just mostly ignored.

It's good that it's ignored.  If anything stopped working just because
I moved a LUKS container to a different partition or device, I would
get rid of LUKS immediately and just use plain dm-crypt.  Adding
unnecessary inter-relationships is a _bad_ thing.

-- 
Bob Nichols     "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address.
                 Do NOT delete it.