penwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> > Subject: Transform OpenWRT to a Yocto / openembedded layer (was: Re:
> > dm-verity support)
> >
> > On 2020-07-30 09:13, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:17:28 +0200
> > >
> -Original Message-
> From: Bas Mevissen [mailto:ab...@basmevissen.nl]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2020 10:54
> To: Thomas Petazzoni
> Cc: m...@adrianschmutzler.de; openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> Subject: Transform OpenWRT to a Yocto / openembedded layer (was: Re:
&
On 2020-07-30 09:13, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:17:28 +0200
wrote:
your dm-verity patchset is in our patchwork since November 2019 (v2).
Unfortunately, nobody seemed to be particularly interested in
reviewing/merging it.
Since I don't see a reason why this should c
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:17:28 +0200
wrote:
> your dm-verity patchset is in our patchwork since November 2019 (v2).
> Unfortunately, nobody seemed to be particularly interested in
> reviewing/merging it.
>
> Since I don't see a reason why this should change in another 8
> months, I'm going
Hello,
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:40:29 -0500
"W. Michael Petullo" wrote:
> Please see
>
> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/3207#issuecomment-660555489
>
> for the steps you could use to test this.
>
> I am not sure what architecture Thomas tested, but he used squashfs. I
> used ext4
> Security sounds fun. Should I just compile the patches and flash on a
> device?
>
> Any concrete test cases to see if it did work? Would any router work or do I
> need some flagship x86 device?
Please see
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/3207#issuecomment-660555489
for the step
>>> I'm sorry, and although I fear a similar fate will hit the SELinux
>>> effort, I still hope you will not feel repelled and continue to
>>> contribute to OpenWrt in the future.
>> That would be a shame. I stepped up to help Thomas revise his SELinux
>> patches for inclusion, and I did a fair am
> -Original Message-
> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org]
> On Behalf Of W. Michael Petullo
> Sent: Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2020 00:30
> To: m...@adrianschmutzler.de
> Cc: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org; thomas.petazz...@bootlin.com
> S
Security sounds fun. Should I just compile the patches and flash on a
device?
Any concrete test cases to see if it did work? Would any router work or
do I need some flagship x86 device?
Best,
Paul
On 29.07.20 12:29, W. Michael Petullo wrote:
I'm sorry, and although I fear a similar fate wil
> I'm sorry, and although I fear a similar fate will hit the SELinux
> effort, I still hope you will not feel repelled and continue to contribute
> to OpenWrt in the future.
That would be a shame. I stepped up to help Thomas revise his SELinux
patches for inclusion, and I did a fair amount of work
Hi Thomas,
your dm-verity patchset is in our patchwork since November 2019 (v2).
Unfortunately, nobody seemed to be particularly interested in reviewing/merging
it.
Since I don't see a reason why this should change in another 8 months, I'm
going to finally mark it as Rejected now. After all, o
Hello,
I have received absolutely no feedback on this v2.
Would it be possible to get these patches reviewed or merged ?
Thanks a lot,
Thomas Petazzoni
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:04:32 +0100
Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 17:23:10 +0100
> Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>
>
Hello,
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 17:23:10 +0100
Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> This is the second iteration of my patch series adding support for
> dm-verity in OpenWRT. See below for some introduction about the
> purpose of this series.
Unless I missed it, I don't think I have received any feedback on th
the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH usage when creating the mksquashfs image.
- Format the cryptsetup patch properly.
- Only build the host tools if CONFIG_TARGET_ROOTFS_SQUASHFS_HASHED is
enabled
- Instead of unconditionally enabling the necessary kernel options for
dm-verity support, we now add the
Hello Hauke,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:13:17 +0100
Hauke Mehrtens 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
Hi Thomas,
On 3/25/19 7:07 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello Hauke,
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:31:19 +0100
> Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>
>>> This "hash tree" is a bunch of metadata that needs to be stored on
>>> non-volatile storage. It can be appended to the filesystem data, or
>>> stored on a s
Hello Hauke,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:31:19 +0100
Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> > This "hash tree" is a bunch of metadata that needs to be stored on
> > non-volatile storage. It can be appended to the filesystem data, or
> > stored on a separate block device/partition. We have chosen to support
> > only
Hi Thomas,
On 3/11/19 5:20 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch series is a proposal to add support for dm-verity to
> OpenWRT. While I am familiar with build systems in general (I am one
> of the core developers of Buildroot), this is my first ever
> contribution to OpenWRT, so I
Hello,
This patch series is a proposal to add support for dm-verity to
OpenWRT. While I am familiar with build systems in general (I am one
of the core developers of Buildroot), this is my first ever
contribution to OpenWRT, so I am definitely not sure that the approach
is correct and I'm interest
19 matches
Mail list logo
