-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
rm: linux-disk-encryption: document re-encryption #621
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d375aed
rm: linux-disk-encryption: document re-encryption
ldts efb04d2
Update source/reference-manual/linux/linux-disk-encryption.rst
ldts 79977a1
Update source/reference-manual/linux/linux-disk-encryption.rst
ldts 38c5b50
Update source/reference-manual/linux/linux-disk-encryption.rst
ldts 3a71ee8
Update source/reference-manual/linux/linux-disk-encryption.rst
ldts 285b686
Update source/reference-manual/linux/linux-disk-encryption.rst
ldts aa10607
Merge branch 'main' into luks
kprosise File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ldts Are we 100% sure this is true? We have clients that are using re-encryption and it picks up where it left off and does not block the boot in their case. Did something change here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes 100%.
I am not sure what configuration they might be running but in our case as soon as we enroll the TPM/PKCS11 tokens, we remove the passphrase and initiate the re-encryption.
If the volume is closed without having completed re-encryption, it just cant be opened again. It is easy to prototype locally on any machine (create a file of ~60MB, create an ext4 filesystem, and encrypt it with luks).
but tell me more about the configuration of those clients so I can see how they differ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
um, are you sure about what your clients are reporting??
see this:
https://github.com/foundriesio/meta-lmp/blob/main/meta-lmp-base/recipes-core/initrdscripts/initramfs-framework/cryptfs#L109
with the current code in the baseline, if online reencryption didnt finish and the board reboots we are going to block initramfs until it completes (resume is a blocking call)
having said that, this segment of code seems to succeed at opening ? which is kind of weird...