On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("Re: #342455"):
> > On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> channelled:
> > > The proposed change to devmapper changes the permissions for all block
> > > devices, doesn't it ? Whereas the other debian defaults vary from
On 2/10/06, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Otherwise, having access to the underlying block devices means having access
> > to meddle with anything on the LVM devices as well.
>
> And who says that anyone have access to
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... follow-up to self: given that crypt-dm sits on top of devmapper, it is
> indeed plausible that one would want to prevent members of group disk from
> reading the decrypted volume.
So don't use group disk in that context.
Just because a f
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:33:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... follow-up to self: given that crypt-dm sits on top of devmapper, it is
> > indeed plausible that one would want to prevent members of group disk from
> > reading the decrypte
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:47:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:33:34PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ... follow-up to self: given that crypt-dm sits on top of devmapper, it is
> > > indeed plausible that one w
5 matches
Mail list logo
