Hello Hauke, On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:13:17 +0100 Hauke Mehrtens <ha...@hauke-m.de> wrote:
> Using some boot arguments sounds like a good solution, but I am not an > expert on the file system handling. OK, thanks. Do you know who would be the appropriate person to discuss this ? > The default has to be the current > behavior, because we do not have control over all boot loaders, I assume > that people who need this special behavior have control over their boot > loader. Yes of course the default would be to preserve the current behavior. > Do you know if it is possible to support dm-verify also for the overlay > file system? dm-verity by essence only supports read-only accesses. dm-verity generates a tree of hashes at "build" time, i.e with "veritysetup format" and at runtime, dm-verity checks that the hash of the blocks being read matches the hash stored in the hash tree. So the data blocks cannot be changed: any change in a data block will cause a hash mismatch, which results in an I/O error: it's exactly what dm-verity wants to detect, that the data has been tampered with. > > As I replied to your review on patch 08/11, the 5.1 kernel will have > > support for setting up DM devices on the kernel command line, it has > > been merged upstream. > > It would be nice if you could backport the upstream version to kernel > 4.14 and 4.19, you do not have to care about the old kernels, when we > move to the next LTS kernel we can just remove the patches. OK, I'll see if the upstream version is reasonable enough to be backported. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
