On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:34:29AM +0100, Christophe Saout wrote: > The keyring API seems very flexible. You can define your own type of > keys and give them names. Well, the name is probably irrelevant here and > should be chosen randomly but it's less likely to collide with someone > else. Dunno here, seems that having one tool that gave the kernel a key named "foo" and then telling dm-crypt to use key "foo" is probably not a bad way to go. Then we don't have stuff like "echo <key> | dmsetup create" and the like and the key-handling smarts can all be put in one separate place.
Getting from here to there might be interesting though. Perhaps we can teach dm-crypt to understand keys of the form "keyname:<foo>"? in addition to raw keys to keep compatibility. Might even be possible to push this down into crypt_decode_key() (or a smarter variant of same). Meanwhile, I'd still like to hide the raw key in crypt_status(). -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/