On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 23:08:19 CET, Lars Winterfeld wrote: > On 08.02.2016 22:51, Milan Broz wrote: > > [Just note to already crazy discussion here - there will be NO LUKS header > > at the end of device. Been there with another storage project and > > just no - it is not worth problems it causes.] > > Out of curiosity: what were those problems? Same here. Not asking for a justification (if you feel it is a mess or other problem, that is quite enough for me), just want to understand the issue. For proper layering, it should of course allways be [header, payload] with the payload having potentially the same format if there are more layers below. That is the tradidional way to do it. This even has a name, but I do not remember it at the moment. Was the problem confusion/complexity because this layering-sheme was violated? Regards, Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718 FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718 ---- A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato If it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
