Hi Mike,
On 4/15/07, Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:01:24PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> I might be answering myself here, but clearly, removing the
> whitelist does not seem possible given the PGP-message-framework
> eCryptfs was designed in.
The whole c
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:01:24PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> I might be answering myself here, but clearly, removing the
> whitelist does not seem possible given the PGP-message-framework
> eCryptfs was designed in.
The whole cipher code thing is just posturing. eCryptfs could just as
easily w
On 4/15/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/15/07, Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that eCryptfs whitelists the cipher name (see
> fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c::ecryptfs_cipher_code_str_map[] and associated
> functions). This is because eCryptfs needs to pick a cipher code
On 4/15/07, Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:34:19AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> You would assign "aes-foo" a lower priority and then tell eCryptfs to
> use "aes-foo" instead of "aes".
Note that eCryptfs whitelists the cipher name (see
fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c::
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
>
> ok but do you think it's safe to assume that no others parts of the
> kernel will request "aes-foo" ? Remember that the main point is to
> optimize "aes-foo" ?
What they request is up to the administrator.
Cheers,
--
Visit Open
