Karel Zak wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:23:42PM -0600, LaMont Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:25:35PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > > > Fine with me. I doubt that removing -N would hurt the debian user > > > base though. I guess noone sane would deliberately use that option. > > > > The only place I could see someone using it would be if they were > > mounting a volume they had built elsewhere (or were using elsewhere), > > and hadn't rebuilt yet/couldn't rebuild. > > > > Here's the patch with -N dropped, which is fine by me. > > At first glance this patch seems OK. I assume some negative feedbacks > from lkml people who hate cryptoloop :-) So.. some questions: > > * how many distributions already support in-losetup hashes? > (Suse, Debian, ?) > > * the original idea was: hashprog | losetup -p0 .... IIRC won't work as losetup doesn't really expect a binary stream there (stops reading on \n). > - why we need built-in hash support? You can for example conveniently specify the hash method as mount option in fstab then. > > Incompatible change: > > Default is now to hash using sha512. Debian users will need > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Why? Why not 'none'? A passphrase is too weak for direct use as encryption key. The default certainly should not encourage that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_strengthening cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
