FUD about CGD and GBDE

[ALeine]

phk at phk.freebsd.dk wrote: 

> The fact that the CGD author(s) engage in this FUD spreading in
> random mailing lists rather than contact me directly speaks
> speaks for itself, but here are my replies to some of the points raised:

Obviously this is a part of some aggressive NetBSD advocacy campaign
that was started just recently, I find it hard to believe that someone
just happened to find my original RFC on backporting GEOM to 4.x from
like a month ago and then decided to revive the thread. Someone was
looking for something recent about GBDE they could claw into. Anyone
who has read recent posts by Chritos Zoulas can see the pattern, this
seems to be an organized effort not so much pro NetBSD but anti other
BSDs. There is really no need for that kind of campaigning, it gives
a bad name to all BSDs. All software has some merit, just state the
facts and let the users decide what they want. 

I agree with you on almost all the other points you addressed (journaling
being an exception - I would make it optional, not mandatory) as I have
stated pretty much the same things myself in my previous posts, so I will
not further comment on that, but I would like to ask your opinion on the
matters I raised about introducing the following changes to GBDE:

1. Introducing a sysctl variable to control how often (after how many writes)
the random key is regenerated:

kern.geom.bde.random_key_regeneration_cycle

The way it works now would correspond to the value being 1 with
regeneration happening on every write. Setting this higher would
improve the performance and people could decide for themselves
what value fits their needs.

2. Backporting to 4.x - this has more or less come to the point that
I would rather write the whole thing from scratch, similar to vncrypt
(ports/security/vncrypt), only implementing the main principles found
in GBDE.

ALeine
___________________________________________________________________
WebMail FREE http://mail.austrosearch.net