On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:44:44PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 02:27:35PM +0100, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> > There is at least one use case where softraid crypto is NOT currently a
> > workable alternative.
> > 
> > If you have a read-only device with a vnd encrypted image on it, you can
> > happily mount and use it.  Currently, softraid crypto does not support
> > read-only devices.
> > 
> > I actually posted patches to -tech to add support for that, so if you want to
> > remove vnd encryption support and push people to softraid crypto, at least the
> > code has been written and tested.  But It's not in cvs, so such existing users
> > of vnd crypto would be left without a migration path if you push forward with
> > it's removal.
> 
> I understand you'd like your softraid patch to be considered,

Just to confirm, I'm not using this as a vehicle to get my code committed,
it's in use on various machines I manage, and solves the issue there, which is
what does matter to me.

> but I
> doubt that the use case you mention prevents the removal of vnconfig
> encryption support.

But you've barely given anyone chance to notice or respond.

This thread started _yesterday_, and based on just two tentitive replies
you're saying that a consensus has been reached?

It took me five seconds to find a use case that you and the others in the
thread had overlooked.  Can we be sure that there are not more?

> Do you actually use vnconfig encryption?

I have used it in the past, including on WORM optical media.  I doubt that
I'll ever need to read an old encrypted vnd image, but if I did then I
could easily write a stand-alone decoder.

Honestly, I would also like to see vnd encryption removed.

But I do think that 24 hours and just two vague offers of support is very
little to conclude that a feature is ready for removal.  Especially when
the proposed alternative is known to not be a complete replacement.