В Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:48:41 +0100 John Lane <g...@jelmail.com> пишет:
> On 28/07/15 22:38, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > > > > Other than 3 and 5 they require difficult configuration. Mapping > > devices in GRUB isn't trivial. Those features are difficult to > > autoconfigure. Consider "plain" mode: how will you find which disk is > > yours when you have 5 disks all looking as random data? > > > > > I don't see what's difficult about providing a LUKs header and key but I > am aware of the issue re device identification in plain mode. However, > if one has a use-case for these crypto routines then I think that would > be a valid use-case for manually configuring grub.cfg if it's beyond > what autoconfiguration supports. If an end user wants to make the choice > then why deny him, just because it may be difficult to autoconfigure ? > Yes, it appears people ask for it. At the end, the worst that can happen is reading garbage. > There does seem to be interest in this functionality. Surely > auto-configuration would't be a bar to supporting this? I don't think I > am the only one who thinks these features are useful... > > Regarding device identification, I had some thoughts on that and was > willing to try implementing something. However I wanted to put this > patch-set to bed before starting on something else. > One think I'd like is to separate self-identified containers managed by cryptomount and dmsetup-like stuff to avoid impression that it is fully supported. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
