lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectMigration from Mileski to kerneli
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 kernel@mallory.draper.net wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
> <snip>
> > I don't think you should send your patches to me - I won't accept
> > them. However, what you can do (if you bother to do so) is to go
> > through your patch and describe the changes you've done. Send the
> > description to me. I can take your description and reimplement your
> > patch. This should probably work for your patch since it seems that
> > the changes are pretty small.
>
> Ah, I see. Well, I don't think that would be very productive. I am
> curious, are you refusing patches from just me, the USA, or the entire
> world?

Tell me about it. I'd love to work on this, but I'm in the USA so I won't
tempt fate.

This does bring me to a question. How would a person migrate gracefully
from Mileski's loop patches for 2.1.98 to the 2.1.129 international
patches? The 2.1.129 international patches don't seem to support IDEA or
CAST-128, though they do support CAST-256, and a quick look at the
included patches for mount-2.5l don't show support for some of the newer
algorithms the international patch covers, like MARS.

I have a lot of data encrypted with Mileski's IDEA patch over here. I
tried to hack IDEA support into 2.1.126 and while I learned a lot in the
process, my implementation of the algorithm itself (which was ripped
directly from Mileski's patch) didn't work. I'm assuming it's because I
effectively used some other block chaining scheme and didn't realize it. I
was trying to use the code in the newer loop driver for 2.1.126. I'm not a
cryptographer.

For personal use only I could hack in whatever algorithms I wanted, but I
hate to have to move several gigabytes of encrypted data spread about
several partitions to another set of partitions because the methods are
incompatable.

I suppose that ideally I could figure out the differences in
implementation, then write a program which reads the cyphertext block file
and spits out another which is 2.1.129-compliant. Of course I have to know
what those differences are (if any).

Oh, and I might make a very minor and easy to implement suggestion for
losetup, swapon, and mount: Add a flag which uses a totally random
passphrase, then generates the appropriate filesystem. For instance, if I
want 64MB of encrypted swap, I specify my algorithm, the system gets a
random passphrase, and handles the setup (mkswap, swapon) for me. I did
this with Mileski's patches and it actually works well.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.051 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site