Re: RFC: block/loop.c & crypto

From: Andrea Arcangeli (
Date: Sun Jul 22 2001 - 17:21:58 EST

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 08:53:50PM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> I haven't told you how the cryptoloop.c module contains the necessary
> logic... :-)

I see now ;).

> security is not the issue; it's more of practical terms... since 512 byte
> seems to be the closest practical transfer size (there isn't any smaller
> blocksize supported with linux) it seems natural to use that one....

to me it sounds more natural to use the 1k blocksize that seems to be
backwards compatible automatically (without the special case), the only
disavantage of 1k compared to 512bytes is the decreased security, so if
the decreased security is not your concern I'd suggest to use the 1k
fixed granularity for the IV. 1k is also the default BLOCK_SIZE I/O
granularity used by old linux (which incidentally is why it seems
backwards compatible automatically).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST