Am Sa, 2003-07-26 um 18.54 schrieb jon+lvm@xxxxxxxxxxx: > > > Well this does kind of make my project redundant and moot :( > > > > Not really. There are still things like storing the key on disk, > > encrypted with an assymetric key (password) or something. And the LVM > > part. > > yeah, but arent you gonna make those? No, I just wanted to play with the device mapper, the in-kernel part only. I don't know why, but I find kernel programming much more attractive. And the device-mapper is a very cleanly structured piece and easy to understand. > Besides, i'll at least have > to talk this situation over with my fellow student and the professor. > I would really like encryption to be a part of LVM, and i want keychange. > I never really expected the dm-target to be the tough part, since it would > just be sort of like dm-linear, and cryptoloop. The other stuff and > performance tuning was where i expected to use time. That's the point. It took me approx. 6 hours to write it (after I had written or ported some other targets). There's nothing innovative in it. > > > If it was so dog-slow, and an unneeded complexity, why did you make it? > > > > Hmm, just for fun? > > hehe, thats the spirit :) Yes. The thing is, my semster at the university ended some days ago and I really love programming but don't have too much time. I wanted to play with the device-mapper for some time and now I got some ideas. I didn't think it was so easy. I even barely had any oopses. The interesting thing is that Joe said that the crypt target would be easier than the file target (ok, if I have had to find out how to use the filesystem it would have taken much more time, but I could simply use the implementation of the loop driver). Actually my crypt target is larger than the file target, and I used the worker thread I had implemented there. Now it's 675 lines in size, a lot of comments, a lot of copied code, really not complicated. > Well, it's sort of both ways. I like encryption, and i want more support > for that in linux. That part i am thrilled about. But i'm not too thrilled > if i means the end of my university project, however, i guess that i better > get used to other people doing the same things that i want to, it's not like > i own the idea. You did catch me off guard, i didnt expect anyone to rush > out and do the same thing that i said i would try, but maybe thats common > in the OS development world? Yes, there is a lot of development in parallel. Normally this leads to better and better implementations in the end. The thing is, after my file backed target worked I wanted to try how you could manipulate the data on its way through the target. The only useful thing I could think of was using the cryptoapi because I had seen how it was used in the loop driver - and it was very easy to use. After it worked I was just too happy that it worked so I couldn't resist to post it. Sorry. -- Christophe Saout <christophe@xxxxxxxx> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html