On 02/05/2016 04:24 PM, Arno Wagner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 16:01:14 CET, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: >> On ven., 2016-02-05 at 14:31 +0100, Arno Wagner wrote: >>> No. You are trying to solve the wrong problem. First, disk >>> encryption with 1:1 mapping will never give you integrity >>> protection and the other variants kill performance. >> >> I perfectly understand that, thank you. Again, I'm *well aware* of the need to >> store integrity patterns somewhere. I'm *not* asking for 1:1 mapping. >> >> Can I sincerely ask that you not consider at first (and second, and third) >> that I didn't think first about what I was asking on the list? > > Then why are you asking about integrity protection on a list > dedicated to a block-layer encryption system? That does not make > any sense. If you state things that do not make sense then I > will point that out, because there is a real possibility that > your reasoning process (I am not implying there was none) was > flawed. I think it is perfectly fine to ask there (please do not forget we are still closely cooperating with storage guys). And by the way, we have a experimental plan to test authenticated encryption on this level (obviously part of that is to solve additional metadata space). (Even if it is not usable in the end I would like to try that.) The reply/revert attack possibility without support of specific hw will be still there but I would say even if we can provide method how to detect random corruption of sectors it could be useful. Milan _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
