Well, I would say that header corruption is covered under "concurrent user access problems", as the header is under user control here. But I see that items 1.9/1.10/1.11 are really in the wrong section. They belong under "Setup" and "Common Problems". I can move them and clarify the locking question. Also 1.9/1.10 should really be one item. Regards, Arno On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 15:01:29 CEST, Jeremiah Moree wrote: > While searching through the source code I came upon > docs/LUKS-locking.txt. > From previous discussions on this list I understood the locking to be > only for protection against concurrent user access. This is how I > wrote the FAQ entry that is now in the docs. > From this new-to-me doc it seems that locking is to also prevent header > corruption. I am surprised no one pointed this out in discussions so > there is a chance I may be misunderstanding. > Specifically, this was in a discussion about --disable-locks. Am I > correct in stating: > Using --disable-locks I risk > * concurrent user access problems > * header corruption > -- > JT > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list -- dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to dm-crypt-leave@xxxxxxxx -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to dm-crypt-leave@xxxxxxxx
