From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juan Quintela Subject: Re: Hi Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:54:06 +0100 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <86adgsuxrl.fsf@trasno.mitica> References: <20030218150457.20101.qmail@webmail30.rediffmail.com> <20030218163422.GC1399@arthur.ubicom.tudelft.nl> <1045609648.18245.0.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Erik Mouw , Rajaram Suresh Gaunker , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org Return-path: To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1045609648.18245.0.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> (David Woodhouse's message of "18 Feb 2003 23:07:29 +0000") List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org >>>>> "david" == David Woodhouse writes: david> On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 16:34, Erik Mouw wrote: >> > Actually i want to convert ext2 to into a encryped file system. >> > for this purpose i want to do that, >> >> I already explained you that for security reasons this functionality >> should be in the block layer, not in the filesystem layer. david> Why? If you do it at the filesystem layer you: a- leave the filesystem structure (i.e. names) unencrypted b- you just don't care if you are not able to recover things at fsck time :( c- you are really clever and finds a way to encrypt all the filesystem and recovering from a crash Apart from that, doing it at the block layer should be much, much easier :) Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy