Am 23.08.2018 um 12:43 schrieb Guilhem Moulin: > 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.
Agreed. Thanks for looking into it :)
>>>> 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.
Upps, you're right. I'm to busy these days and didn't check properly.
Cheers
jonas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
