[pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#546610: Bug#546610: Bug#546610: cryptsetup: root= cmdline call is not honoured by initrd in crypto+lvm (Was initramfs-tools: ...)

[Jonas Meurer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey August,

Am 21.02.2012 21:07, schrieb Agustin Martin:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:39:12PM +0100, Agustin Martin wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:26:57PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
>>>> NEWROOT=${cmdline_root=/dev/mapper/$cryptlvm}
>>> 
>>> In my tests, this didn't work as expected. For some reason,
>>> $cryptlvm is ignored within the specified default value for
>>> NEWROOT.
>> 
>> Not sure if related to the above, but I should have used
>> 
>> NEWROOT=${cmdline_root:-/dev/mapper/$cryptlvm}
>> 
>> Not using ":" might cause portability issues, and there is no
>> need to change $cmdline_root value so ":-" instead of "=" seems
>> better.
>> 
>> Do not have the lilo booted box here to test and remember the
>> details. I however added some debugging lines just after that
>> definition,
> 
> Hi, Jonas, finally could test this in a lilo booted box.
> 
> First noticed that my previous lilo tests were not as good as I
> expected when testing that replacement line, all lilo entries had
> an explicit root= line. So, I prepared a lilo entry with no root=
> line at all anywhere and started testing again in my lilo system
> with no cryptopts= settings.
> 
> Everything seems to work well, even old "=" setting booted
> properly. Tested with initramfs built in testing, booting in three
> cases, no root= at all (booted testing), root= pointing to stable
> (booted stable) and root= pointing to testing (booted testing).
> Substitutions seem to work as expected.
> 
> Has your test setup something special?

first rough tests seem to work properly, but I didn't find time to
test with luks-encrypted rootfs on top of several physical lvm volumes
// raid devices yet.

unfortunately I'm rather busy at the moment. will see whether I'm able
to do the remaining tests within the next week.

but before actually uploading, I'd like to find a fix for the
regression described in bug#659688. and I didn't find time to work on
that one yet at all.

regards,
 jonas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=YtF/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----