Re: CPRM ?? Re: Possibly wrong BIO usage in ide_multwrite

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

Christophe,

Fair enough, and point taken.  Thanks for the clarification.

I am puzzled by the need to modify buffers on the fly inside the FSM.
This is straight out of some unpublished information, so it struck a raw
nerve.  Just be aware this tends to follow the design and could be used
for such.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group



On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Christophe Saout wrote:

> Am Fr, den 02.01.2004 schrieb Andre Hedrick um 05:43:
> 
> > I am sorry but adding in a splitter to CPRM is not acceptable.
> > Digital Rights Management in the kernel is not acceptable to me, period.
> > 
> > Maybe I have misread your intent and the contents on your website.
> >
> > Device-Mappers are one thing, intercepting buffers in the taskfile FSM
> > transport is another.  This stinks of CPRM at this level, regardless of
> > your intent.  Do correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> I can assure you I was never having DRM or anything like this in mind
> nor making fundamental changes to the IDE layer. It was just that
> ++bi_idx that bugged me. Must be a misunderstanding, sorry. :)
> 
> The only thing I'm having on my website is a device-mapper target that
> does basically the same as cryptoloop tries to. It's just about
> encrypting sensitive data on top of any other device, nothing else.
> 
>