cryptoloop extended for compressors.

cryptoloop extended for compressors.

[Luca Barbato]

Hi, I'm porting cloop ideas from the 2.4 kernel to 2.6 and I'm basically 
extending the current cryptoloop to support compressors and not just 
ciphers. If someone interested wants take a look 
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/gcloop contains some patch snapshots, and 
userspace utilities.

It isn't yet completed and the ucl module (that I'm using as 
decompressor) needs to incorporate libucl.a currently, you should copy 
it to crypto/ (probably one of the worst thing to do, but works fine for 
testing).

Regards

lu

-- 
Luca Barbato
Developer
Gentoo Linux				http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

gcloop: compressed loopback support for 2.6

[Luca Barbato]

Hi,
The kernel modules and the userspace tools seems to work fine enough.

Patches, and documentation are available at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/gcloop/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/gcloop

lu

-- 
Luca Barbato
Developer
Gentoo Linux				http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: gcloop: compressed loopback support for 2.6

[Mike Fedyk]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:29:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Hi,
> The kernel modules and the userspace tools seems to work fine enough.
> 
> Patches, and documentation are available at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/gcloop/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/gcloop

Is/will knoppix be using this this as well or is this a fork?

Re: gcloop: compressed loopback support for 2.6

[Luca Barbato]

Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:29:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Is/will knoppix be using this this as well or is this a fork?
> 
This started as fork from the cloop-0.6x.
Now the file format is almost the same, but the code is quite different: 
the only thing that remains is the the basic logic and the block unpacker.
The current code is currently under testing for gentoo livecd and other 
projects that use the same tecnology, at least that I'm aware.
If Klaus thinks that gcloop is good enough for his knoppix I'd be glad.

Currently gcloop-0.99 uses 32bit indexes since my target are livecd, for 
livedvd would be better use the newer cloop-2.0/1.0 file format with 
64bit indexes.

gcloop isn't file format compatible with the old cloop-0.68 fileformat 
since I had to use in a different way the index and I prefer ucl instead 
of zlib.

lu

-- 
Luca Barbato
Developer
Gentoo Linux				http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: gcloop: compressed loopback support for 2.6

[Mike Fedyk]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:15:24AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> gcloop isn't file format compatible with the old cloop-0.68 fileformat 
> since I had to use in a different way the index and I prefer ucl instead 
> of zlib.

Maybe you can merge ucl into cloop 2.x, and support both (one compression
scheme per image, of course) in the same codebase?

Has cloop been ported to 2.6?

Re: gcloop: compressed loopback support for 2.6

[Mike Fedyk]

> >On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:15:24AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >>gcloop isn't file format compatible with the old cloop-0.68 fileformat 
> >>since I had to use in a different way the index and I prefer ucl instead 
> >>of zlib.

> Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >Maybe you can merge ucl into cloop 2.x, and support both (one compression

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:39:14AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >scheme per image, of course) in the same codebase?
> gcloop supports arbitrary compressor you just have to make the cryptoapi 
> module of it, 

That's good.

> and obviously change the userspace tools, the only 

Hmm, so I presume that gcloop has its own userspace utilities...

> restraint is the file format, the changes I made are due the need to 
> avoid high penality on uncompressible blocks

Interesting.

> , with some effort I can 
> make the parser support all the formats (gcloop, cloop-0.68, 
> cloop-1.0/2.0) but would enlarge the code a bit or make it slower.

It would be good to have all of these competing formats handled, dicesions
on which format(s) should be used for future versions before it's integrated
into mainline.

> >
> >Has cloop been ported to 2.6?
> >
> not that I know.

Boooo, bad knoppix! ;)