[PATCH] mounting encrypted devices infrastructure

[David Faure]

On Monday 16 February 2004 19:35, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 06:41:35PM +0100, David Faure wrote:
> > On Monday 16 February 2004 16:11, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> > > Can I commit the patches?
> > 
> > Looks fine to me. But if the support for this requires something platform/kernel/tools-specific
> > (I guess it does), then it would be good to hide or disable this checkbox when the system 
> > doesn't support it, to prevent confusion.
> The encrypted partition/device has to be setup manually anyway. SuSE has
> an option for this purpose in Yast and for RedHat and Debian you can
> create shell Scripts which are started via init.d.
Yes, so the question is what will happen when the user doesn't do any of that,
and simply checks the checkbox, and types a password. If the thing is then mounted
unencrypted, that would be a problem (false sense of security)...

But I was more wondering about detecting that encrypted partitions/devices are
not supported at all, to hide the UI in that case.... but I guess this isn't possible.

> This 'Encrypted' is just a boolean for whether a password dialog should
> be presented to the user or not. Maybe an other label would fit better?
Not necessarily, if the password is always used for encryption then it's better to
give the label a useful text... I think "Encrypted" is fine.

> > Hmm, another way to ask for the password would be to have a field for it in
> > the properties dialog and then store it in kwallet... But this wouldn't help people
> > who disable kwallet, so I guess you'd still need the dialog popping up when
> > clicking on the icon, for such stone-age people...  :}
> I thought about adding kwallet support to this wrapper app (together
> with the normal user/password aproach), so both can be used.
OK.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).