Re: CPRM ?? Re: Possibly wrong BIO usage in ide_multwrite
From: Christophe Saout <hidden>
Date: 2004-01-02 12:45:38
Also in:
lkml
From: Christophe Saout <hidden>
Date: 2004-01-02 12:45:38
Also in:
lkml
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.