From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266450AbUGVGOD (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:14:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266817AbUGVGOD (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:14:03 -0400 Received: from dsl081-055-019.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.55.19]:42129 "EHLO mail.fountainbay.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266450AbUGVGN6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:13:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4546.24.6.231.172.1090476838.squirrel@24.6.231.172> In-Reply-To: <20040722014649.309bc26f.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20040721230044.20fdc5ec.akpm@osdl.org> <4411.24.6.231.172.1090470409.squirrel@24.6.231.172> <20040722014649.309bc26f.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete cryptoloop From: "Dale Fountain" To: "Andrew Morton" Cc: jmorris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: dpf-lkml@fountainbay.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton said: > dpf-lkml@fountainbay.com wrote: >> >> Hopefully someone else will follow up, but I hope I'm somewhat >> convincing: > > Not really ;) > > Your points can be simplified to "I don't use cryptoloop, but someone else > might" and "we shouldn't do this in a stable kernel". > Well, you're incorrect about my not using cryptoloop. Sorry I wasn't convincing enough. :) > Well, I want to hear from "someone else". If removing cryptoloop will > irritate five people, well, sorry. If it's 5,000 people, well maybe not. > I don't think you'll get 5000 replies... about anything. ;) > Yes, I buy the "stable kernel" principle, but here we have an example > where > it conflicts with the advancement of the kernel, and we need to make a > judgement call. > I don't buy the "conflicts with the advancement" part, but I'll defer to your judgement. ;) > > Actually, my most serious concern with cryptoloop is the claim that it is > insufficiently secure. If this is true then we'd be better off removing > the feature altogether rather than (mis)leading our users into thinking > that their data is secure. I believe 1) the current documentation already notifies people of the security issues, 2) there are workarounds, and 3) the replacement has security issues of its own. Dm-crypt is still unstable, doesn't have all the features of cryptoloop (please see my previous message), yet you wish to dump cryptoloop? At least cryptoloop is a known quantity. Once dm-crypt can be shown to have all the features of the software it's meant to _replace_, I'll be more likely to agree. Otherwise, it sounds like this decision is being made on a whim. Regards, Dale Fountain