On 26/10/10 22:24, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This is where we should be going. Encryption is really irrelavent. The issue >> should be if a removable device is inserted, who should have access to it >> if it gets automounted. I would expect encrypted and unencrypted devices >> to get the same treatment. The encrypted devices do already have a pop up, >> so maybe that makes it not as much effort to ask a question when the device >> is mounted. But I don't see otherwise why one would want to treat encrypted >> and uncrypted removable devices differently. > > We don't know which of multiple users plugged the device in but we > know which user provided the key to decrypt the device. > > The existence of encryption shows that the user may care more about > the confidentiality of the data, and there is less of an previously > existing "installed base" of expectations about how an encrypted > volume works when you plug it in. This is exactly it. > If we wanted to get fancy (e.g. go beyond just a change in the default > modes) additional users could authenticate themselves to an already > mounted encrypted volume one at a time by providing the key. > > ::shrugs:: -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
