On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 14:34 +0100, Joel Reardon wrote: > I actually just copied this comment from the comment following padding1 > and padding2; should they all just be omitted? Ah, ok, ignore this comment then please. > As for the ubifs being mounted with the old, it may be best to increase > the version format number. The old version won't be able to 'read' (i.e., > decrypt) the data, while the new version has a switch to enable both > modes. If new data is written by the old version then the new version will > also have trouble to read it (unless we set crypto_lookup==0 to mean no > key). But its probably for the best to just let older version mount the > security enhanced one as read-only using the version format as the data > will be anyhow unreadable. Non-security-enhanced ubifs (but > aware) partitions can set the version format to the older value as they > will be compatible. OK. Then I guess the version increment patch should also be separate. In general, try to make logically independent things separately and keep patches small. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
