| Summary: | luks on bcache doesn't decrypt | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy> |
| Component: | bcache-tools | Assignee: | Rolf Fokkens <rolf> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 20 | CC: | ignatenko, jreznik, rolf |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-10-03 06:21:08 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2013-10-02 19:02:49 UTC
Could you try latest F20 lvm2 as well? That version of lvm2 accepts bcache0 as a PV by default, and I think that this will enable LUKS as well. Thanks for the suggestion; I installed F20 lvm2 and its dependencies. Unfortunately it didn't help. The layering is: filesystems lvm2 luks bcache md disks My understanding is that this will be assembled from the bottom-up, such that the next layer up is assembled from the one below it according to how the device is probed/labelled/detected. So I wouldn't expect lvm to act on bcache directly at all. You're right, but lvm2 was worth a try. Will get back on this one later. To be sure: it works without bcache in between? And another thing: could you check if /etc/crypttab is reflecting the current situation? Unfortunately, I can't easily test without bcache since the disks are already populated. Good suggestion about crypttab; the bcache0 device was not listed there. I added it and will try a reboot later to see if it fixes/changes things. OK, fantastic, that seems to have done the trick. So I guess there's no bug here after all? No bug indeed, thanks for testing bcache-tools. |