On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 12:16:35 +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > Mh. When using LUKS, the cryptsetup scripts should not do any post > checks by default. Can you send a detailed log of the script execution? > Maybe indeed our initramfs rewrite introduced a regression here. > Guildhem, could you look into this?
That's not a regression AFAIK, see https://bugs.debian.org/906283#10 :-) But I'll remove the check for LUKS, then. >>> Why not returning `pttable` too, indicating that it is not a garbage >>> inside of it? >>> Or do you suggest that cryptsetup integration needs to be adjusted >>> instead? >> >> I think cryptsetup should be adjusted. >> >> Looking at the local-top script from cryptsetup-initramfs, it seems to >> depend rather too closely on details of both initramfs-tools and lvm2. >> >> - Why does it try to activate a volume group directly? lvm2's scripts >> should do that. > > The problem is that we support both setups with dm-crypt on top of lvm > and lvm on top of dm-crypt. That's why we mess around with lvm directly, > since the lvm2 local-top script is executed after cryptroot. I guess you mean the other way around, as the /script/local-top/cryptroot has been running last since forever :-P As I just wrote, if /script/local-{top,block}/lvm2 were to depend on cryptroot, we wouldn't have to manually activate the device for LVM in dm-crypt setups. -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
