Re: --disable-locks

Well, I would say that header corruption is covered under
"concurrent user access problems", as the header is under
user control here. 

But I see that items 1.9/1.10/1.11 are really in the wrong
section. They belong under "Setup" and "Common Problems". 
I can move them and clarify the locking question.

Also 1.9/1.10 should really be one item.

Regards,
Arno

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 15:01:29 CEST, Jeremiah Moree wrote:
>    While searching through the source code I came upon
>    docs/LUKS-locking.txt.
>    From previous discussions on this list I understood the locking to be
>    only for protection against concurrent user access.  This is how I
>    wrote the FAQ entry that is now in the docs.
>    From this new-to-me doc it seems that locking is to also prevent header
>    corruption.  I am surprised no one pointed this out in discussions so
>    there is a chance I may be misunderstanding.
>    Specifically, this was in a discussion about --disable-locks.  Am I
>    correct in stating:
>    Using --disable-locks I risk
>    * concurrent user access problems
>    *  header corruption
>    --
>    JT

> _______________________________________________
> dm-crypt mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]


-- 
Arno Wagner,     Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform.,    Email: [email protected]
GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718  FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF  B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718
----
A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato

If it's in the news, don't worry about it.  The very definition of 
"news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier
_______________________________________________
dm-crypt mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]