On Fr, 09.05.25 15:58, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > The current behavior looks more like the case for auto-detection - check
> > > what existing measurements are covered by predictions and incorporate
> > > those
> > > PCRs. I.e. when no explicit --pcr= option is present.
>
On 2025-05-09 13:03, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fr, 09.05.25 15:58, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> If you want explicit config use the simpler PCR protections
> systemd-cryptsetup gives you, and avoid pcrlock.
I obviously want to use pcrlock to have alternatives (like being
On Fr, 09.05.25 15:36, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
61;8001;1c
> I know that it is documented, but that leads to rather bad user experience.
> User requests specific protection via --pcr= option, pcrlock decides to skip
> (some of) them and binds unlocking to just a subset of PCRs
On 2025-05-09 12:36, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
I know that it is documented, but that leads to rather bad user
experience. User requests specific protection via --pcr= option,
pcrlock decides to skip (some of) them and binds unlocking to just a
subset of PCRs pretending that the operation succeeded
09.05.2025 15:45, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fr, 09.05.25 15:36, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
61;8001;1c
I know that it is documented, but that leads to rather bad user experience.
User requests specific protection via --pcr= option, pcrlock decides to skip
(some of) them and
On Fr, 09.05.25 09:31, Johannes Barthel
(johannes.bart...@farming-revolution.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we're using an Ubuntu setup where systemd-coredump is set up as the coredump
> handler. This is fine, coredumps end up in /var/lib/systemd/coredump/. We
> would however like to additionally run ou
I know that it is documented, but that leads to rather bad user
experience. User requests specific protection via --pcr= option, pcrlock
decides to skip (some of) them and binds unlocking to just a subset of
PCRs pretending that the operation succeeded. At this point user
believes that the syst
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:45, Johannes Barthel
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> we're using an Ubuntu setup where systemd-coredump is set up as the coredump
> handler. This is fine, coredumps end up in /var/lib/systemd/coredump/. We
> would however like to additionally run our own event handler (for remote
>
This may not be correct but have you tried to override the
systemd-coredump@.service
to add an ExecStartPost=your_script_here ?
If I understand correctly, the socket activates the service which is the
one to do the dumping itself, so maybe that or a PRE would work for you?
Hope it helps, as seems
Hi,
we're using an Ubuntu setup where systemd-coredump is set up as the coredump
handler. This is fine, coredumps end up in /var/lib/systemd/coredump/. We would
however like to additionally run our own event handler (for remote error
reporting) in case of a process dumping core.
Does systemd-c
10 matches
Mail list logo
