Adding Harald to thread. Seems to be nominally related boot path with deo and dm-crypt.
Adding to Dracut might be preferable to creating a separate PBA Subhendu On Jul 23, 2015 10:20 AM, "Chuck Anderson" <c...@wpi.edu> wrote: > > I originally sent this to the packaging list, but there was no > response there so I'm posting to devel now. > > I've also opened a review request for the non-controversial packaging > of the "msed" utilities. Would anyone care to do a review swap? > > Review Request: msed - Tools to manage the activation and use of self encrypting drives > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245640 > > Thanks. > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:48:27 -0400 > From: Chuck Anderson <c...@wpi.edu> > To: packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: [Fedora-packaging] building an embedded Linux distro into a RPM package > Precedence: list > Reply-To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora < packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > I would like to submit a new package that provides a Pre-Boot > Authorization (PBA) image. The PBA is a "bootloader" of sorts that > prompts the user for the passphrase to unlock a Self-Encrypting Drive > (SED) using the TCG OPAL command set, and then either chainloads to > the real OS or reboots to allow the BIOS to boot the real OS. The > image gets installed to the OPAL SED as a sort of "shadow MBR/shadow > disk image" using a special command "msed" (Manage Self-Encrypting > Drive) that I also plan to submit a package for. > > In my case, I've developed a tiny embedded Linux-based PBA image [1] > using Buildroot [2] and the MSED software [3]. The final image is a > MBR-partitioned disk image with VFAT filesystem containing the > specially built Linux kernel (vmlinuz), initramfs (rootfs.gz), and the > installed syslinux bootloader. > > Before you ask, I can't use even a stripped-down Fedora image for this > purpose, because it must be TINY and it only exists to run a single > command (linuxpba), then reboot. My image is 4MB and could be made > even smaller. See the reasoning in [1] for why it must be so small. > > [1] https://github.com/cranderson/buildroot-linuxpba > [2] http://buildroot.uclibc.org/ > [3] http://www.r0m30.com/msed > > Now I know there are several challenges to using the Buildroot > approach to building software for Fedora. Buildroot downloads > software from the Internet, unpacks, patches, configures, and builds > it. The build environment is built first, so gcc, uClibc, busybox, > etc. and then the packages you want to include are built in that > environment. > > What is the best approach I should use that is acceptable to Fedora? > > Would it be acceptable to bundle source packages, Buildroot itself, > and my Buildroot configuration into one SRPM so everything is > self-contained and can be built without requiring network > connectivity? This means I would have to bundle the source code for > gcc, the linux kernel, uClibc, busybox, etc. > > Or is there some way to pull in SRPM packages that already exist in > Fedora, and use those as part of my build process so that I don't have > to bundle all the source code? Additionally, I could made separate > SRPM packages for Buildroot itself, any components needed (uClibc is > already in the distro), the Buildroot build scripts for > buildroot-linuxpba, and the actual package I need (msed). > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
