Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Max Vozeler wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:51:04PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > even more if it is loop-aes which show a long history of > > hostily of the module owner versus linux-2.6 upstream. > > That's not true. > > There are several reasons why loop-AES has not been merged > upstream, and has very little chance of getting upstream in the > current form at all. > > But hostility of the loop-AES upstream author towards linux-2.6 > upstream is definately not the case. I'd like to ask you to take > more care before making such statements. boah just search lmkl for one minute and you find plenty of examples. > Anyways, on a constructive point, looking forward: > > I'm about to submit a patchset that adds support for the loop-AES > crypto modes to the upstream kernel, so that it can be used with > plain dm-crypt and cryptsetup. > > I hope this will reduce the need for using the OOT module in the > medium term, and will allow us in d-i to drop the reliance on the > OOT module builds for fully featured crypto support. > > Max that is a sound idea and something that it's author should have prioritised from day 1. work with in tree kernel crypto implementation is the road forward. the author got told this years ago: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=113337208023241&w=2 -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
Maks, On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:51:04PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > even more if it is loop-aes which show a long history of > hostily of the module owner versus linux-2.6 upstream. That's not true. There are several reasons why loop-AES has not been merged upstream, and has very little chance of getting upstream in the current form at all. But hostility of the loop-AES upstream author towards linux-2.6 upstream is definately not the case. I'd like to ask you to take more care before making such statements. Anyways, on a constructive point, looking forward: I'm about to submit a patchset that adds support for the loop-AES crypto modes to the upstream kernel, so that it can be used with plain dm-crypt and cryptsetup. I hope this will reduce the need for using the OOT module in the medium term, and will allow us in d-i to drop the reliance on the OOT module builds for fully featured crypto support. Max -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Wednesday 29 July 2009, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 29 July 2009, you wrote: > > > Just for the record, the following is NOT correct: > > > 10:09 otavio: only linux-modules-extra > > > 10:09 nothing d-i uses and nothing one should really have to > > > care. > > > > > > D-I uses the loop-aes modules (for encrypted partitioning) and that > > > is exactly why it is so hard to switch D-I to a new kernel version: > > > D-I can only realistically switch to a new kernel for an arch when > > > both the kernel itself *and* loop-aes are available. > > > > sorry to say so, > > but it is idiotic that d-i *depends* on external modules. > > *shrug* > D-I has been using loop-aes since Sarge. This is nothing new. To clarify: D-I does not *depend* on loop-aes (as you put it), but it does *use* it. And if it is missing we have a regression in offered functionality, which is especially bad for any D-I release. Besides that, if l-m-e fails to build and is migrated to testing then any users having encrypted partitions using loop-aes will be unable to update their kernel, so treating the absence of l-m-e as a blocker for migration of the kernel seems quite correct to me. Debian has been offering support for encrypted partitions using loop-aes and if that is to be dropped it should be done in a clean way. The kernel team ignoring build failures in one of the packages it maintains is IMO not a reason to lower the normal quality criteria of the testing suite. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:50:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 29 July 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > > > Are there logs of the two meetings? > > > > well the second meeting got shortcut by recent events, > > first meeting yes: > > http://charm.itp.tuwien.ac.at/~mattems/%23debian-kernel.2009-07-25.log > > Thx. > > Just for the record, the following is NOT correct: > 10:09 otavio: only linux-modules-extra > 10:09 nothing d-i uses and nothing one should really have to care. > > D-I uses the loop-aes modules (for encrypted partitioning) and that is > exactly why it is so hard to switch D-I to a new kernel version: D-I can > only realistically switch to a new kernel for an arch when both the > kernel itself *and* loop-aes are available. sorry to say so, but it is idiotic that d-i *depends* on external modules. even more if it is loop-aes which show a long history of hostily of the module owner versus linux-2.6 upstream. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Wednesday 29 July 2009, you wrote: > > Just for the record, the following is NOT correct: > > 10:09 otavio: only linux-modules-extra > > 10:09 nothing d-i uses and nothing one should really have to > > care. > > > > D-I uses the loop-aes modules (for encrypted partitioning) and that > > is exactly why it is so hard to switch D-I to a new kernel version: > > D-I can only realistically switch to a new kernel for an arch when > > both the kernel itself *and* loop-aes are available. > > sorry to say so, > but it is idiotic that d-i *depends* on external modules. *shrug* D-I has been using loop-aes since Sarge. This is nothing new. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Wednesday 29 July 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > > Are there logs of the two meetings? > > well the second meeting got shortcut by recent events, > first meeting yes: > http://charm.itp.tuwien.ac.at/~mattems/%23debian-kernel.2009-07-25.log Thx. Just for the record, the following is NOT correct: 10:09 otavio: only linux-modules-extra 10:09 nothing d-i uses and nothing one should really have to care. D-I uses the loop-aes modules (for encrypted partitioning) and that is exactly why it is so hard to switch D-I to a new kernel version: D-I can only realistically switch to a new kernel for an arch when both the kernel itself *and* loop-aes are available. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:08:11PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 28 July 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > There will be a second kernel BoF/meeting tomorrow (29th July) at > > 16:00-18:00 local time (14:00-16:00 UTC). > > > > I would like to discuss a possible lenny-and-1/2 kernel release. There > > should be time to discuss several other issues. > > Are there logs of the two meetings? well the second meeting got shortcut by recent events, first meeting yes: http://charm.itp.tuwien.ac.at/~mattems/%23debian-kernel.2009-07-25.log -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Kernel BoF, 29th July
On Tuesday 28 July 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote: > There will be a second kernel BoF/meeting tomorrow (29th July) at > 16:00-18:00 local time (14:00-16:00 UTC). > > I would like to discuss a possible lenny-and-1/2 kernel release. There > should be time to discuss several other issues. Are there logs of the two meetings? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Kernel BoF, 29th July
There will be a second kernel BoF/meeting tomorrow (29th July) at 16:00-18:00 local time (14:00-16:00 UTC). I would like to discuss a possible lenny-and-1/2 kernel release. There should be time to discuss several other issues. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Unix is many things to many people, but it's never been everything to anybody. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
