Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Johannes Graumann
I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it even
make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?

Thanks, Joh


On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:34:25 -0400
Peter Cordes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:58:41PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote:
   Johannes == Johannes Graumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  [...]
  
  Johannes And on another note: in
  Johannes
  http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography/filesystems/loop-aes/loop-AES.README
  Johannes I read the following: Don't use a journaling file system
  on Johannes top of file backed loop device, unless underlying file
  system Johannes is journaled and guarantees data=ordered or
  data=journal. Johannes Can anybody comment on whether I can use
  reiserfs on top of my Johannes loopback?
  
  The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
  filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without data=ordered. 
 
  Actually, it does.
 
  It
  has to do with using a file-backed loop device (versus
  partition-backed loop device), where the file is sitting on a
  journaling filesystem.  If your loop device is a partition, or is
  file-based, but sits on top of a non-journaled filesystem
 
  Wait a second;  I think this one doesn't belong in the list of things
  that
 will be correct.
 
  or a journaled filesystem with data=ordered or
  journaled, then you can use any filesystem without problems.  (Or,
  at least, you won't (shouldn't) run into any problems other than
  what you might run into if it were not on a loopback device.)
  
  Basically, if you don't have data=ordered, or data=journaled, any
  system crash could completely screw up your entire loopback,
  rendering it completely unusable.  If you don't plan on having any
  system crashes or hard reboots, I think you can still run a loopback
  on top a non-data=ordered journaled filesystem fairly safely.
 
  No, the point is that journaling file systems depend on stuff being
  written
 to disk in the order they want, so if something goes wrong at _any_
 moment, they can pick up the pieces.  ext3 with data=writeback, for
 example, only bothers to strictly control the order of metadata.  A
 loopback to a file on such a filesystem will not preserve write
 ordering, so a journaling filesystem on top of it will be making false
 assumptions.  Filesystem metadata (which needs to be ordered) is just
 data on the loopback device. However, if the underlying filesystem
 preserves data ordering, it can satisfy the requirements of the
 journaling filesystem that's on top of it.
 
  I'm not sure if you need data=journal on the underlying filesystem
  for
 data=journal on the loopback filesystem to make sense, but I don't
 think so.
 
 -- 
 #define X(x,y) x##y
 Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca)
 
 The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the
 hours!
  Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and
  hack my day so wretchedly into small pieces! -- Plautus, 200 BC
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Peter Cordes
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:07:51PM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
 I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it even
 make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?

 Yes, if the file you're looping back to is on a journalled filesystem, or
is a partition.

 (ext3 is fine, but you need to patch reiserfs for ordered data.)

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca)

The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces! -- Plautus, 200 BC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Johannes Graumann
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:12:18 -0400
Peter Cordes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:07:51PM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
  I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it
  even make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?
 
  Yes, if the file you're looping back to is on a journalled
  filesystem, or
 is a partition.
 
  (ext3 is fine, but you need to patch reiserfs for ordered data.)

OK, I'm using a partition - will stick with ext3 for now to circumvent
patching. I'm sufficiently fighting with the swsuspend2 patch ;0)

Thanks!

Joh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Johannes Graumann
I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it even
make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?

Thanks, Joh


On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:34:25 -0400
Peter Cordes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:58:41PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote:
   Johannes == Johannes Graumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  [...]
  
  Johannes And on another note: in
  Johannes
  http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography/filesystems/loop-aes/loop-AES.README
  Johannes I read the following: Don't use a journaling file system
  on Johannes top of file backed loop device, unless underlying file
  system Johannes is journaled and guarantees data=ordered or
  data=journal. Johannes Can anybody comment on whether I can use
  reiserfs on top of my Johannes loopback?
  
  The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
  filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without data=ordered. 
 
  Actually, it does.
 
  It
  has to do with using a file-backed loop device (versus
  partition-backed loop device), where the file is sitting on a
  journaling filesystem.  If your loop device is a partition, or is
  file-based, but sits on top of a non-journaled filesystem
 
  Wait a second;  I think this one doesn't belong in the list of things
  that
 will be correct.
 
  or a journaled filesystem with data=ordered or
  journaled, then you can use any filesystem without problems.  (Or,
  at least, you won't (shouldn't) run into any problems other than
  what you might run into if it were not on a loopback device.)
  
  Basically, if you don't have data=ordered, or data=journaled, any
  system crash could completely screw up your entire loopback,
  rendering it completely unusable.  If you don't plan on having any
  system crashes or hard reboots, I think you can still run a loopback
  on top a non-data=ordered journaled filesystem fairly safely.
 
  No, the point is that journaling file systems depend on stuff being
  written
 to disk in the order they want, so if something goes wrong at _any_
 moment, they can pick up the pieces.  ext3 with data=writeback, for
 example, only bothers to strictly control the order of metadata.  A
 loopback to a file on such a filesystem will not preserve write
 ordering, so a journaling filesystem on top of it will be making false
 assumptions.  Filesystem metadata (which needs to be ordered) is just
 data on the loopback device. However, if the underlying filesystem
 preserves data ordering, it can satisfy the requirements of the
 journaling filesystem that's on top of it.
 
  I'm not sure if you need data=journal on the underlying filesystem
  for
 data=journal on the loopback filesystem to make sense, but I don't
 think so.
 
 -- 
 #define X(x,y) x##y
 Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca)
 
 The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the
 hours!
  Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and
  hack my day so wretchedly into small pieces! -- Plautus, 200 BC
 



Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Peter Cordes
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:07:51PM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
 I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it even
 make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?

 Yes, if the file you're looping back to is on a journalled filesystem, or
is a partition.

 (ext3 is fine, but you need to patch reiserfs for ordered data.)

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca)

The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces! -- Plautus, 200 BC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Johannes Graumann
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:12:18 -0400
Peter Cordes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:07:51PM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
  I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it
  even make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?
 
  Yes, if the file you're looping back to is on a journalled
  filesystem, or
 is a partition.
 
  (ext3 is fine, but you need to patch reiserfs for ordered data.)

OK, I'm using a partition - will stick with ext3 for now to circumvent
patching. I'm sufficiently fighting with the swsuspend2 patch ;0)

Thanks!

Joh



Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-21 Thread Adam ENDRODI
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:12:18AM -0400, Peter Cordes wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:07:51PM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
  I feel this is kind of over my head ... to boil it down: does it even
  make sense to run reiserfs inside a loopback partition?
 
  Yes, if the file you're looping back to is on a journalled filesystem, or
 is a partition.

Does keeping the log off the loopbacked file make any difference?

bit,
adam

-- 
Am I a cleric? | 1024D/37B8D989
Or maybe a sinner? | 954B 998A E5F5 BA2A 3622
Unbeliever?| 82DD 54C2 843D 37B8 D989
Renegade?  | http://sks.dnsalias.net



Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Jan Minar
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:47:40AM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
 Don't use a journaling file system on top of file backed loop device,
 unless underlying file system is journaled and guarantees data=ordered
 or data=journal.

AFAIK, This reads as: ``Don't think journalling buys you anything,
unless the lower layers actually write the journalling data to the
disk.''

If you have a journalling fs (A) over a non-journalled fs (B), on a
crash you'll get A thinking it's journal/whatever is reliable, while B
crashed without writing A's journal to the disk.  The result will likely
be the A more corrupted than it would be without the journalling turned
on.

HTH,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Minar   Please don't CC me, I'm subscribed. x 9


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Thomas Sjögren
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:47:40AM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
 Now: how do I make sure this is AES-256 and not some other permutation
 of the cypher?

You use the losetup -k (or --keybits) option.
Eg. losetup -e aes -k 256 ...

/Thomas
-- 
== [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
== Encrypted e-mails preferred | GPG KeyID: 114AA85C
--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Hubert Chan
 Johannes == Johannes Graumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

[...]

Johannes And on another note: in
Johannes 
http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography/filesystems/loop-aes/loop-AES.README
Johannes I read the following: Don't use a journaling file system on
Johannes top of file backed loop device, unless underlying file system
Johannes is journaled and guarantees data=ordered or data=journal.
Johannes Can anybody comment on whether I can use reiserfs on top of my
Johannes loopback?

The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without data=ordered.  It
has to do with using a file-backed loop device (versus partition-backed
loop device), where the file is sitting on a journaling filesystem.  If
your loop device is a partition, or is file-based, but sits on top of a
non-journaled filesystem or a journaled filesystem with data=ordered or
journaled, then you can use any filesystem without problems.  (Or, at
least, you won't (shouldn't) run into any problems other than what you
might run into if it were not on a loopback device.)

Basically, if you don't have data=ordered, or data=journaled, any system
crash could completely screw up your entire loopback, rendering it
completely unusable.  If you don't plan on having any system crashes or
hard reboots, I think you can still run a loopback on top a
non-data=ordered journaled filesystem fairly safely.

reiserfs does not have data=ordered or data=journal semantics by
default.  In order to get this, you must apply Chris Mason's patch, and
recompile the kernel.

ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/2.4.20/ and
select your kernel version.  Apply the patches in order.  (Patches for
2.6.x are currently experimental.)  These patches should get merged into
mainline sometime ... soon.  (For some value of soon.)

You'll also have to add a data=ordered or data=journal mount
option.  (data=ordered will be the default in some future version.)

-- 
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Hubert Chan
 Hubert == Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

replying to self...

[...]

Hubert The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
Hubert filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without
Hubert data=ordered. ...

Hmmm.  Maybe I should learn to read... :-(

So that comment was about using a journaling filesystem on a loopback
that sits on a journaling system.  But AFAICT, using a loopback that
sits on a journaling system that does not have data=ordered, or
data=journal is not a very good idea.  The corruption that I had
mentioned before is still possible.  As well, filesystems generally
have to make some sort of assumptions that, if I had asked data A to be
written to the disk before data B, then if B has been written, then A
should also have been written.  I don't think you get that on your
loopback unless you have data=ordered or data=journal.  Perhaps
journaling filesystems are more dependent on that assumption.

Anyways, my previous comment on needing Chris Mason's patches to get
data=ordered and data=journal on reiserfs still stands, of course.

-- 
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Peter Cordes
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:58:41PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote:
  Johannes == Johannes Graumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 [...]
 
 Johannes And on another note: in
 Johannes 
 http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography/filesystems/loop-aes/loop-AES.README
 Johannes I read the following: Don't use a journaling file system on
 Johannes top of file backed loop device, unless underlying file system
 Johannes is journaled and guarantees data=ordered or data=journal.
 Johannes Can anybody comment on whether I can use reiserfs on top of my
 Johannes loopback?
 
 The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
 filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without data=ordered. 

 Actually, it does.

 It
 has to do with using a file-backed loop device (versus partition-backed
 loop device), where the file is sitting on a journaling filesystem.  If
 your loop device is a partition, or is file-based, but sits on top of a
 non-journaled filesystem

 Wait a second;  I think this one doesn't belong in the list of things that
will be correct.

 or a journaled filesystem with data=ordered or
 journaled, then you can use any filesystem without problems.  (Or, at
 least, you won't (shouldn't) run into any problems other than what you
 might run into if it were not on a loopback device.)
 
 Basically, if you don't have data=ordered, or data=journaled, any system
 crash could completely screw up your entire loopback, rendering it
 completely unusable.  If you don't plan on having any system crashes or
 hard reboots, I think you can still run a loopback on top a
 non-data=ordered journaled filesystem fairly safely.

 No, the point is that journaling file systems depend on stuff being written
to disk in the order they want, so if something goes wrong at _any_ moment,
they can pick up the pieces.  ext3 with data=writeback, for example, only
bothers to strictly control the order of metadata.  A loopback to a file on
such a filesystem will not preserve write ordering, so a journaling
filesystem on top of it will be making false assumptions.  Filesystem
metadata (which needs to be ordered) is just data on the loopback device.
However, if the underlying filesystem preserves data ordering, it can
satisfy the requirements of the journaling filesystem that's on top of it.

 I'm not sure if you need data=journal on the underlying filesystem for
data=journal on the loopback filesystem to make sense, but I don't think so.

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca)

The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces! -- Plautus, 200 BC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Jan Minar
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:47:40AM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
 Don't use a journaling file system on top of file backed loop device,
 unless underlying file system is journaled and guarantees data=ordered
 or data=journal.

AFAIK, This reads as: ``Don't think journalling buys you anything,
unless the lower layers actually write the journalling data to the
disk.''

If you have a journalling fs (A) over a non-journalled fs (B), on a
crash you'll get A thinking it's journal/whatever is reliable, while B
crashed without writing A's journal to the disk.  The result will likely
be the A more corrupted than it would be without the journalling turned
on.

HTH,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Minar   Please don't CC me, I'm subscribed. x 9


pgpQefBoYnNKx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Thomas Sjögren
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:47:40AM -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
 Now: how do I make sure this is AES-256 and not some other permutation
 of the cypher?

You use the losetup -k (or --keybits) option.
Eg. losetup -e aes -k 256 ...

/Thomas
-- 
== [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
== Encrypted e-mails preferred | GPG KeyID: 114AA85C
--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Hubert Chan
 Johannes == Johannes Graumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

[...]

Johannes And on another note: in
Johannes 
http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography/filesystems/loop-aes/loop-AES.README
Johannes I read the following: Don't use a journaling file system on
Johannes top of file backed loop device, unless underlying file system
Johannes is journaled and guarantees data=ordered or data=journal.
Johannes Can anybody comment on whether I can use reiserfs on top of my
Johannes loopback?

The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without data=ordered.  It
has to do with using a file-backed loop device (versus partition-backed
loop device), where the file is sitting on a journaling filesystem.  If
your loop device is a partition, or is file-based, but sits on top of a
non-journaled filesystem or a journaled filesystem with data=ordered or
journaled, then you can use any filesystem without problems.  (Or, at
least, you won't (shouldn't) run into any problems other than what you
might run into if it were not on a loopback device.)

Basically, if you don't have data=ordered, or data=journaled, any system
crash could completely screw up your entire loopback, rendering it
completely unusable.  If you don't plan on having any system crashes or
hard reboots, I think you can still run a loopback on top a
non-data=ordered journaled filesystem fairly safely.

reiserfs does not have data=ordered or data=journal semantics by
default.  In order to get this, you must apply Chris Mason's patch, and
recompile the kernel.

ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/2.4.20/ and
select your kernel version.  Apply the patches in order.  (Patches for
2.6.x are currently experimental.)  These patches should get merged into
mainline sometime ... soon.  (For some value of soon.)

You'll also have to add a data=ordered or data=journal mount
option.  (data=ordered will be the default in some future version.)

-- 
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


pgproTH7FPVBx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Hubert Chan
 Hubert == Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

replying to self...

[...]

Hubert The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
Hubert filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without
Hubert data=ordered. ...

Hmmm.  Maybe I should learn to read... :-(

So that comment was about using a journaling filesystem on a loopback
that sits on a journaling system.  But AFAICT, using a loopback that
sits on a journaling system that does not have data=ordered, or
data=journal is not a very good idea.  The corruption that I had
mentioned before is still possible.  As well, filesystems generally
have to make some sort of assumptions that, if I had asked data A to be
written to the disk before data B, then if B has been written, then A
should also have been written.  I don't think you get that on your
loopback unless you have data=ordered or data=journal.  Perhaps
journaling filesystems are more dependent on that assumption.

Anyways, my previous comment on needing Chris Mason's patches to get
data=ordered and data=journal on reiserfs still stands, of course.

-- 
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


pgpwM80is6Efn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 2.6.1 CryptoAPI woes

2004-01-20 Thread Peter Cordes
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:58:41PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote:
  Johannes == Johannes Graumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 [...]
 
 Johannes And on another note: in
 Johannes 
 http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography/filesystems/loop-aes/loop-AES.README
 Johannes I read the following: Don't use a journaling file system on
 Johannes top of file backed loop device, unless underlying file system
 Johannes is journaled and guarantees data=ordered or data=journal.
 Johannes Can anybody comment on whether I can use reiserfs on top of my
 Johannes loopback?
 
 The comment has nothing to do with whether or not your encrypted
 filesystem is a journaling filesystem with or without data=ordered. 

 Actually, it does.

 It
 has to do with using a file-backed loop device (versus partition-backed
 loop device), where the file is sitting on a journaling filesystem.  If
 your loop device is a partition, or is file-based, but sits on top of a
 non-journaled filesystem

 Wait a second;  I think this one doesn't belong in the list of things that
will be correct.

 or a journaled filesystem with data=ordered or
 journaled, then you can use any filesystem without problems.  (Or, at
 least, you won't (shouldn't) run into any problems other than what you
 might run into if it were not on a loopback device.)
 
 Basically, if you don't have data=ordered, or data=journaled, any system
 crash could completely screw up your entire loopback, rendering it
 completely unusable.  If you don't plan on having any system crashes or
 hard reboots, I think you can still run a loopback on top a
 non-data=ordered journaled filesystem fairly safely.

 No, the point is that journaling file systems depend on stuff being written
to disk in the order they want, so if something goes wrong at _any_ moment,
they can pick up the pieces.  ext3 with data=writeback, for example, only
bothers to strictly control the order of metadata.  A loopback to a file on
such a filesystem will not preserve write ordering, so a journaling
filesystem on top of it will be making false assumptions.  Filesystem
metadata (which needs to be ordered) is just data on the loopback device.
However, if the underlying filesystem preserves data ordering, it can
satisfy the requirements of the journaling filesystem that's on top of it.

 I'm not sure if you need data=journal on the underlying filesystem for
data=journal on the loopback filesystem to make sense, but I don't think so.

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca)

The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces! -- Plautus, 200 BC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature