|
From: <hzu...@ra...> - 2003-12-01 19:30:33
|
On 11/30/2003 08:36:00 PM Diego Torres wrote: >On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 02:28:10PM -0500, hz...@pr... wrote: > >> I personally think it's a good idea to include it. >> We have to ensure that the new loop fs really is compatible with the >old >> one. > >yes, that's what i'm doing now. i'm facing a couple of problems. now >that >loop is compiled as a module, it has to be included in the initrd image >(for the normal bootup process). it's the first time i'm doing such a >thing :) Oh that's very confusing at the beginning, when I just think back until we had the first working version. But that's just something you're never working on a "normal" Linux box. >> One thing has to be clear when you guys want to use a encrypted loop >fs: >> you have to enter the password during bootup, otherwise it doesn't >make any >> sense ! > >well, currently with a per-user encrypted home, the password is asked >when the >user logs in. there is a small .bash_rc file that mounts the encrypted >image >on the home directory, and umounts it when logging out. That's not bad, but that only works with SSH or console logins, correct? >> So if you guys want to include it, ensure all the above works fine >with the >> current 1.1 series and then go ahead. > >i'm testing it. i'll ask for help on a couple of days ;) btw, we need >loop-AES >v1.7 because it has the patches for the 2.4.22 kernel, and a small diff >from >loop-AES v2.0b to patch util-linux 2.12. hope that isn't a problem. Is v2.0b only for 2.6 Kernels ? Heiko |