Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:55:33 +0000 From: Zenny <garbytrash@...il.com> To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Customizing Owl to fit in a small sized USB Stick or CF On 3/26/12, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 07:39:27AM +0000, Zenny wrote: >> On 3/26/12, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: >> > Gremlin had patches to add a new make target that would generate flash >> > images instead of ISOs. I think those were primarily intended for >> > installing systems from, and they were for larger flash devices (1 GB >> > being considered the minimum anyone would likely happen to have handy >> > anyway). >> >> Great info. Do you mean this one: >> ftp://ftp.gremlin.people.openwall.com/pub/linux/Owl/INSTALL/? > > Almost. IIRC, Gremlin also produced a patch to our Owl/build/ tree to > automatically generate flash images like that. Gremlin, please post > that patch to owl-dev now such that we could refer to it at least. Appreciate if Gremlin post the patch somewhere and post a link here. @Gremlin: Thanks in advance! > >> With ZFS on Linux (ZoL) and BTRFS in the horizon, it seemed as such a >> script would be nice to separate OS from the data. With ro CF/USB with >> an encrypted data volume implemented in Owl would indeed be awesome! > > Owl already supports encryption for loopback devices, so you can use > an encrypted ext4 filesystem with it currently (with our pre-built > kernels and tools). As to keeping the OS read-only, this also can be > done e.g. like it's done on our live CDs. We could add some scripts to > make setting this up easier, but I think folks should start actually > setting up systems like that first, so that we know what's actually in > demand and what is not. > >> Thanks that you appreciate interest in new features. Have you ever >> though to HAMMER filestystem from DragonflyBSD to port? I am >> optimistic that Owl team could port HAMMER to Owl (as you already have >> ported several of the BSD utilities). > > That would be an ambitious project of its own, and porting of kernel > code is quite different from porting of userspace code - including in > terms of subsequent maintenance as the Linux kernel interfaces change. > > One of the reasons why Owl evolves a lot slower than we'd like it to is > that it's not the only project we're working on. While certain other > projects of ours like John the Ripper are technically part of Owl, > they're not essential to Owl and they have an overall negative effect on > Owl development in particular (they take more time than they're worth as > it relates to Owl, even though they're very valuable on their own). In > this context, adding yet another project that is not essential to Owl > would have negative overall effect on Owl development. Thus, no, let's > not port HAMMER to Linux on our own. If someone else does it and > maintains it, then that would bring it within consideration for Owl. Just found that there was an effort made over github, but could not say whether it is of Owl-standard: §1 http://dlorch.github.com/hammer-linux/ §2 http://dlorch.github.com/hammer-linux/files/hammer-lorch.pdf > > Meanwhile, we support DRBD in our kernel builds (and we need to add the > corresponding userspace tools to Owl), and we may add support for some > additional filesystems that are already supported on Linux. BTW, of the > less common ones, I'd consider POHMELFS. Thanks for pointing to POHMELFS. Interesting one, studying now but it has transformed a lot since it was conceived as evident from the post here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/8/293 POHMELFS seems to become just the wrapper for the new network, elliptis, but for me it is early to comment. ;-) > > Alexander >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.