On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:09:17AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > We already have experience (with luks and swap) when users lost data
> > because there was more valid signatures on the disk. (Currently,
> > cryptosetup and mkswap should be fixed.)
> >
> > From my point of view this your request is dangerous.
Well, this is not true. The problem was "swapon" on partition with
valid LUKS.
> How is it more or less dangerous than the existing RAID exception it
> adds to? LUKS-managed disks require activation to be mountable, just as
> RAID do.
Yes, you're right.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
