From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267431AbUBROeH (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:34:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267409AbUBROeG (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:34:06 -0500 Received: from host-64-65-253-246.alb.choiceone.net ([64.65.253.246]:20694 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267431AbUBROeB (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:34:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4033737D.5030601@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:15:25 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Christophe Saout , hch@infradead.org, thornber@redhat.com, mikenc@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: dm-crypt using kthread References: <20040216014433.GA5430@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040215175337.5d7a06c9.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040215175337.5d7a06c9.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Christophe Saout wrote: > >>+ This device-mapper target allows you to create a device that >> + transparently encrypts the data on it. You'll need to activate >> + the required ciphers in the cryptoapi configuration in order to >> + be able to use it. > > > Is there more documentation that this? I'd imagine a lot of crypto-loop > users wouldn't have a clue how to get started on dm-crypt, especially if > they have not used device mapper before. > > And how do they migrate existing encrypted filesytems? And there are a reasonable number of us who build kernels without dm, lvm, and actually run working servers on them. Having not had problems with either file or device backed cryptoloop I'm not eager to go do some new gee-whiz thing which require training time, new bugs to be fixed (unless you think this is more perfect than anything else in the kernel), etc. Taking features out of a stable kernel, particularly those which work for many people, doesn't sound right, somehow. New features don't break existing setups, but removal of a feature seems to be more appropriate for 2.7. Of course by them it's likely that bugs will be removed and there will be no justification to remove it. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979