On 23/06/2006 Florian Weimer wrote: > > the only cases that are known to me, where data loss may still occur > > are encrypted devices without an identifying header, like plain dm-crypt > > devices. > > Logical volumes are in this category, too.
how? if they don't contain any data? i don't talk about partition types here, but about the data on the device. and logical volumes don't differ from other devices here. > > i don't like the idea to check for string 'swap' in the source or target > > device, as this would enforce even more restrictions to the admin. > > Currently, it does not work at all. How could soemthing else be more > restrictive? the current situation is broken. it was never intended to deny encrypted swap. the discussion is not about a fix for the current situation but about a better checksystem implementation in general. ... jonas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
