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

[Christophe Saout]

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.


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