![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Well, I think secure deletion should be an option for everyone. Using encryption is a data hiding technique, you prevent people for detemining what sort of data is being stored there. Now, admittedly I dont know at what level the reiser4 encryption appears, but I would think its safer to have complete erasure when a file deleted regardless of how well protected its contents were. just a thought. --gq Hans Reiser wrote: > Jamie Lokier wrote:> >> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:>> >>>>> Actually, I have encountered file systems where two successive >>> write() calls from userspace to the same offset in the file wouldn't >>> end up in the same physical location on the disk (AIX's JFS with >>> compression).>>> >>>>>> See also:>>>> - ext3 with data journalling >> >> - reiser4 with wandering logs >> >> - experimental ext? patches for tail-packing small files >> >> -- Jamie >> - >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >> linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> >> >> >>> reiser4 probably does not need secure deletion as much as others, > because once the encryption plugins are debugged we will most likely > encourage users to use encryption by default. Perhaps someone will show > the error in my thinking though, I am not trying to be rigid here.... > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||