Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] loop-IV calculation fix]

[Todd M. <nil...@ne...>]

Not sure who the current maintainer of loop.c is, but I noticed that
Jari has gotten some patches into loop.c over the past year, so he might
have some more information, or perhaps he can get his patch submitted. 
Otherwise, you might try Alan Cox, he might be easier to get to accept
the patch, and once it's in an ac kernel, it should eventually get
pushed to mainline.  Just some thoughts.

On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 13:08, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> well...
> 
> alas I'm not very good in being convincing... :-(
> 
> has anyone any idea how we can get marcelo to get the IV fix in?
> otherwise I fear this issue will _never_ be fixed, and the iv patch will
> have to exist until the year we make contact (2010)... :-/
> 
> regards,
> 
> ----
> 

> From: Marcelo Tosatti <ma...@co...>
> To: Herbert Valerio Riedel <hv...@ke...>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop-IV calculation fix
> Date: 08 Mar 2002 13:47:28 -0300
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 Mar 2002, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 19:20, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Isnt the patch going to break old cryptoloop files?
> > 
> > not really, since the 2.4 patch-int's cryptoloop files got broken
> > anyway, due to this IV mess :-/ -- the patch-int requires this patch
> > anyway to be applied, if you want to make use of the cryptoloop
> > filter...
> > 
> > most people using cryptoloop files already switched to the portable
> > 512-byte IV metric, since it's the only sensible way to have reliable
> > encrypted volumes with the 2.4 kernel series; 
> 
> Most people yes, but all people I don't think so, right ?
> 
> I dont want those people to be unable to read their files.
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> > 
> > and the good thing is, that having the IV be of atomic size, we can
> > easily emulate the 2.2 behaviour within the loop filter plugins for
> > backward compatibility;
> >  
> > if you want other opinions than mine, please ask andrea or axboe -- as
> > we have discussed this issues since the beginnings of 2.4.x ...  :-/
> > 
> > so the question is, shall we leave 2.4 broken, just because we want to
> > keep compatibility which we lost anyway (to 2.2) or can we finally do 
> > the right thing (tm) and fix this bug?
> > 
> > ps: it's quite easy to convert an old 2.2 style volume to a 512-byte
> > metric volume...
> > 
> > ps2: if you don't apply this patch, you can't even use some of the newer
> > filesystems over cryptoloop...
>