Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dm-crypt"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(ambigous sentence if you(aka me) don't know much)
(Restructuring: rm closed item)
 
(73 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==<s>Moving the LVM solution to the top</s>==
+
== New idea ==
Hello. This wiki page while very exhaustive in content is tangenital with a fractured flow. It seems the prefered method for straight forward system encryption in single drive systems is to use a combination of Luks and LVM2 - this solution provides for an encrypted swap that does not have any issues with hibernation or suspend. I propose making this section the first part of the wiki page to follow the justification for using Luks with the rather large volume of detailed information to follow in other sections. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and structure this in the wiki page itself.
+
The philosophy behind the <s>current</s> old structure was to try to generalize the various steps for encrypting an entire system or a device and managing it, however we've noticed it's kind of hard. A new idea for reducing duplication of content while maintaining, if not improving, readability, would be to <s>rename the "/Examples" subpage to "/Common Scenarios" and move it to first place in [[Dm-crypt with LUKS/draft]], so it's used</s> use the [[dm-crypt#Common scenarios]] section as the starting point by the readers. It should contain the most common uses for encryption, which IMO are:
[[User:Vinhsynd|Vinhsynd]] 9:55, 30 September 2010 (CDT)
+
  
==<s>Cleanup</s>==
+
*[[dm-crypt/Encrypting a Non-Root File System]]
Hey all, I was trying to encrypt my hd using this page as a reference, but it was a bit difficult to read. As such, I'm going to try to clean things up a bit. It would be nice if there were a clean set of instructions with tips along the way for specialized setups.
+
**partition
 +
**loopback
 +
*[[dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System]]
 +
**plain dm-crypt (merge [[Plain dm-crypt without LUKS]], done)
 +
**dm-crypt + LUKS (no LVM)
 +
**LVM on LUKS (merge [[Encrypted LVM]], done)
 +
**LUKS on LVM (merge [[Encrypted LVM]], done)
 +
**(I think it would be really cool if we could also include an example with software RAID)
  
On a related note... would anyone mind if some of the posts on this page were erased? There are a number of posts from 2007, 2008...
+
Each of those scenarios should be mostly a stripped sequence of commands with short descriptions that should link to generic sections in the other subpages of <s>[[Dm-crypt with LUKS]]</s> [[dm-crypt]], pointing out all the particular suggested adaptations that apply to that particular scenario.
--[[User:Arcanazar|Arcanazar]] 13:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
+
  
== Cleanup and Clarification ==
+
The idea is quite clear in my mind, I hope I've managed to explain it well enough, I'll try to put it into practice and see if it raises major problems.
I'm considering to do some editing and rewriting of this page, mainly in part "4 The Steps". The content would mostly stay the same, safe for some changes introduced with the newer versions of arch, where less console switching and module loading is needed. On the same subject should we drop, or move to a subsection, the parts related to versions 0.72 of arch?
+
  
Does anyone have objections to my plans, or should I just go ahead and we can revert back if it doesn't fit?
+
-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
[[User:WhiteMagic|WhiteMagic]] 12:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
+
  
: Clean up is really needed. Please someone with enough knowledge start the job. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 02:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
+
EDIT: since [[Plain dm-crypt without LUKS]] would be merged here, the main article should be just renamed to [[dm-crypt]]. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  
:: This is new territory for me, but I want to implement this topic myself soon. I'll start with removing some duplicated content. [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 07:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
+
EDIT: updated for current structure. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 +
===Scenario structure===
 +
:Plenty of stuff to do, yet: Taking for granted we want an additional example with RAID sometime, it might be worth considering to split [[dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System]] into a subpage for (e.g.) [[dm-crypt/Encrypting a single disk system]] and [[dm-crypt/Encrypting a system across multiple disks]] scenarios. The latter covering "LUKS on LVM" and said RAID. Main reason: page length. If you agree, let's better do it now. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 12:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  
== Luks and suspend2 ==
+
::Not a bad idea at all! However IMHO the proposed titles are a bit misleading: I would go for [[dm-crypt/Encrypting a System on Physical Devices]] and [[dm-crypt/Encrypting a System on Virtual Devices]], in fact you ''can'' use multiple physical disks in every case if you want. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Would it be worth adding a section on opening encrypted drives from the kernel command line, or more specifically on combining luks and suspend2? As far as I can tell opening a swap partition from crypttab doesn't make it available in time to resume from, but adding the following to a lilo append option does:
+
::EDIT: Note that the history of [[dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System]] should be preserved by ''moving'' it to one of the two titles, and then (or before) splitting the other page. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
resume2=swap:/dev/mapper/swap cryptdevice=/dev/sda2:swap
+
:::+1 to your edit, I learned that from watching. The one letdown of this whole fun exercise is that the wiki engine does not seem to support basic content splits and joins preserving history. Anyhow, we might as well just keep it in mind and consider splitting it later (when there is something about RAID). Funnily, I find the use of "physical" (all blockdevices are on one) and "virtual" (suggests a qcow device) as differentiator not totally clear too. Let's meditate over it again until someone has another snappy idea. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 23:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct/best way of doing this, though, and didn't see other documentation.
+
 
+
== Proposed update of the section 'Storing the key between MBR and 1st partition' ==
+
{| style="background-color: #f3f9ff; margin: 1em 2.5% 0 2.5%; padding: 3px 3px; border: 1px solid #aaa;"
+
|-
+
|'''Background'''
+
+
I tried to setup automatic mount of my LUKS encrypted {{ic|/home}} using a keyfile stored between MBR and first partition header of my USB key following this wiki page and realized that it didn't work out because the howto is incomplete. I had to manually go through the encrypt hook to figure out what it does. To save other users this tiresome work that cost me hours until all finally worked out the way I wanted it I propose to update the mentioned section in the following way. Suggestions welcome. Maybe it should be noted in the parent section that {{ic|/etc/crypttab}} conflicts with using the howto presented here.
+
|}
+
 
+
Add the temporary keyfile we created before with cryptsetup:
+
cryptsetup luksAddKey /dev/hda3 secretkey
+
 
+
That should return you output like this:
+
Enter any LUKS passphrase:
+
key slot 0 unlocked.
+
Command successful.
+
 
+
Next you'll have to write the key directly between MBR and first partition.
+
 
+
WARNING: you should only follow this step if you know what you are doing - '''it can cause data loss and damage your partitions or MBR on the stick!'''
+
 
+
If you have a bootloader installed on your drive you have to adjust the values. E.g. GRUB needs the first 16 sectors, you would have to replace seek=4 with seek=16; otherwise you would overwrite parts of your GRUB installation. When in doubt, take a look at the first 64 sectors of your drive and decide on your own where to place your key.
+
 
+
''Optional''
+
dd if=/dev/usbstick of=64sectors bs=512 count=64  # gives you copy of your first 64 sectors
+
hexcurse 64sectors                                # determine free space
+
 
+
Write your key to the disk:
+
dd if=secretkey of=/dev/usbstick bs=512 seek=4
+
 
+
If everything went fine you can now overwrite and delete your temporary secretkey:
+
shred --remove --zero secretkey
+
You should not simply use rm as the keyfile would only be unlinked from your filesystem and be left physically intact.
+
 
+
Now you have to add a kernel parameter in your {{ic|/boot/grub/menu.lst}} (GRUB), it should look something like this:
+
kernel /vmlinuz-linux root=/dev/hda3 ro vga=791 cryptkey=/dev/usbstick:2048:2048 cryptdevice=/dev/hda4:home
+
Format for the cryptkey option:
+
cryptkey=BLOCKDEVICE:OFFSET:SIZE
+
OFFSET and SIZE match in this example, but this is coincidence - they can differ (and often will). An other possible example could be (if you use skip=16 in the 'dd' command above to protect the bootloader)
+
kernel /vmlinuz-linux root=/dev/hda3 ro vga=791 cryptkey=/dev/usbstick:8192:2048 cryptdevice=/dev/hda4:home
+
Format for the cryptdevice option:
+
cryptdevice=BLOCKDEVICE:MAPPING_TARGET
+
The encrypted block device BLOCKDEVICE will then be mapped to {{ic|/dev/mapper/MAPPING_TARGET}}
+
 
+
'''Note:''' You will _not_ need to have {{ic|/etc/crypttab}} setup for this device then (but maybe you want to use it for other encrypted devices where you want to enter the passphrase manually or e.g. use a keyfile stored on this afterwards decrypted partition)! But don't forget to activate the ''encrypt'' hook in {{ic|/etc/mkinitcpio.conf}} (_before_ the ''filesystems'' hook)
+
 
+
That's all, reboot and have fun! And look if your partitions still work after that ;-).
+
 
+
---
+
: I removed the section referenced above today with [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Dm-crypt_with_LUKS&diff=273959&oldid=273945 this] edit. The method described of storing a key was in the past maybe more often used than today. However, it was always dangerous for the partition table and the secrets. There are plenty better options. If someone sees reasons to keep this (and maybe also why we should re-add it to the wiki), please give some input here in talk. Otherwise I'll propose to close this discussion and the related one below sometime later. Thanks. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 19:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Decryption of root during boot with the assistance of UDEV when key is stored on USB drive between MBR and 1st Partition ==
+
The instructions in the wiki were very helpful but a bit confusing/lacking when it comes to getting Decryption via USB keyfile stored between MBR and 1st Partition.
+
 
+
[[System_Encryption_with_LUKS#Storing_the_key_between_MBR_and_1st_partition]] makes references to {{ic|/dev/usbkey}} but the previous instructions aren't entirely clear on how to ensure your usb drive can always be found at this location.
+
 
+
When modifying your bootloader you will be unable to use ''/dev/disk/by-uuid'' because you are not referencing a filesystem.  You wouldn't want to use ''/dev/sd[x]'' because this can and will change depending on what other drives and media you have connected during boot.  The best bet is to create a udev rule that will exist in early userspace to alias your usb drive to an arbitrary name, in this case "usbkey".  The rule must be added to the initial ramdisk so it can be read and processed to alias your drive at ''/dev/usbkey'' before root decryption is attempted via the key hidden on the drive.
+
 
+
[[System_Encryption_with_LUKS#Using_udev]] runs you through the initial steps you need to create a basic rule based on the USB drive's serial number.  That is the very same rule I used.  I named the rules file "62-usbkey.rules" and placed it in {{ic|/etc/udev/rules.d/}}.
+
 
+
Now modify {{ic|/etc/mkinitcpio.conf}}, look for the "FILES" section and add the udev rule that you created above:
+
 
+
<pre>
+
# FILES
+
# This setting is similar to BINARIES above, however, files are added
+
# as-is and are not parsed in any way.  This is useful for config files.
+
# Some users may wish to include modprobe.conf for custom module options
+
# like so:
+
#    FILES="/etc/modprobe.d/modprobe.conf"
+
FILES="/etc/udev/rules.d/62-usbkey.rules"
+
</pre>
+
 
+
Run ''mkinitcpio'' ala [[Mkinitcpio#Image_creation_and_activation]] and rebuild your ramdisk with the new udev rule you've included.  You can now continue to follow the instructions in [[System_Encryption_with_LUKS#Storing_the_key_between_MBR_and_1st_partition]] to modify your bootloader and substitute references to "usbkey" to whatever you named your drive alias above.
+
 
+
[[User:S0ma|S0ma]] 13:48, 16 December 2011 (EST)
+
 
+
== Feature of Grub2 to decrypt /boot ==
+
Original comment by Chehri on 8.6.13, moved from [Dm-crypt_with_LUKS#Creating_Disk_Partitions] to here:
+
It is now possible to include /boot on a LUKS container thanks to grub 2.00. Zack Buhman (buhman) has proposed a [https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31877 patch] which allows this. This allows kexec to be used to start a new kernel in remote situations. It also removes any possibility of the kernel being tampered with (though grub is still unencrypted; store on a removable drive for added safety).
+
:Interesting patch/idea. I moved the out-of-date box here to discussion first for the following reason:
+
:The patch you link to is proposed and not even commented on, i.e. it is not in the encrypt hook. Having it there as out-of-date in this general Luks section at the beginning will confuse new readers totally. Another reason is that the Luks page in that section is general, not grub specific. Everything there can be setup with standard Arch [core], i.e. also Syslinux.
+
:I hope you agree to that, if not let's please discuss it. Thanks.
+
 
+
:I think the best way forward for the contribution would be to draft a subsection under 3.2 (e.g. as 3.2.7), we have different hook modifications there for the swap. (later on there is a specific section on encrypted keyfiles too where it might fit well). Once the section is complete and accurate to modify a standard Arch, one could link to it from the general section above. Once something like that goes into the vanilla Arch-encrypt hook, it should definetely be described earlier. Another (different) point would be to discuss the pros/cons security-wise of such a modification a bit. That could be done in the subsection too. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 17:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
==<s>Encrypting a LVM setup (ex section 8) </s>==
+
The content in sections 8.1 to 8.4 has to be updated, particularly the AIF and /etc/rc.conf references must go. Since another user created a "Encrypted LVM" stub article, which (arguably) has style problems but is a good read otherwise, I see two alternatives for section 8:
+
 
+
A. (1) Remove all outdated install instructions from 8.1 to 8.4, (2) link to the "Encrypted LVM" stub article for users looking for verbose LVM/LUKS install instructions, but (3) keep the LVM short instructions in this article too as a quick reference section. Next, (4) the "Encrypted LVM" should then properly link back properly to the "LUKS" page (particularly to the explanations about the LUKS options)!
+
 
+
B. The second option would be to (5) move the stub article here into section 8, but this would require a major work to make it fit with the rest of the page (double content, a lot of linking up/down).
+
 
+
Both can be done, I prefer A, also because the LUKS page itself is rather huge already. In fact I added links over to that stub page a while back so that new users find it so noone stumbles over /arch/setup et al.
+
Maybe you have another idea than A or B. Opinions? --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
:Yep, if you could take the time to implement A it would be a great improvement. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 07:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
+
::Glad you approve. I have done a re-work today of that; could not wait somehow. Would be good, if someone has a look over it in case I missed out on something. The editing was not that much, more trying not to loose great content which still applies. Still missing is A(4) from above (backlinking from the stub page) and removing the merge-tag in the section (ex sec 8). I also moved some sections to get connected content together (please check TOC). I hope it is not only better in my view. Anyone missing something can find the original section 8 (LUKS-LVM) pasted on my user-page for the time being. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 17:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
+
:::I've taken the time to check your edits (you made it a lot easier by properly commenting really everything), and I like what you've done, it's a very good job!! :)
+
:::Yes, A(4) still has to be done, while about removing the Merge template I don't know, maybe "Encrypting a LVM setup" can still be merged to [[Encrypted LVM]], what do you think? (This would be kind of a C. alternative, opposed to B.).
+
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 13:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
+
::::Thanks for taking the time to check it! Currently I would leave it at A as opposed to C, for two reasons: Firstly, the [[Encrypted LVM]] works/reads well with the two main setup options shown. Then it picks up different important subjects (gpt, multiple disks) but lacks some of the setup the LVM example this page has (e.g. nowhere on [[Encrypted LVM]] you find the word "swap"). So a merge would entail rework of the page in order not to loose content in the merge. Or even adding another example there (better not imho). Secondly, the other installation instructions on this page [[LUKS#Encrypting_a_system_partition]] are deliberately describing the simplest encrypted setup. So, the LVM install example here adds options which a reader might want to mix in (e.g. swap, separate /home; maybe those options are worth a mention revisiting it). I think about it again, but currently I would consider the current split easier comprehensible for both pages and outweighing the duplicity (of LVM commands). Any further LVM install tricks should of course be on the other pages, LUKS tricks here. Thoughts? --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 21:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::All right, you convinced me, let's leave it there, thanks again ^^ (this discussion will stay open until all the remaining points are implemented) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 10:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
+
::::::Okies, I added three (sublime:p) link-backs in the [[Encrypted LVM]] howto where I would consider LUKS pointers useful at the least. I will surely revisit the page, but at current A(4) is done from my view. Maybe the merge tag can go for now. Next bits of re-work here on the page may be further streamlining the starting section with better guidance through the page, but that's out-of-bounds this discussion (more the first point on this page). I also marked some old discussions here as closed. It would be nice if you or someone else could look at them sometime and rm as appropriate. Thanks. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::::Well done, you can remove the merge template and close this discussion then (don't worry, all closed discussions ''are'' removed sooner or later). If you will want to discuss more changes to this article, do not hesitate to open another thread. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 04:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
==Merge with "plain dm-crypt without LUKS"==
+
[[User:Develper|Develper]] has written a new A-Z howto for setting up a plain dm-crypt system, a subject not covered yet in our wiki. It is discussed how to effectively use common content for the benefit of the articles on disk crypto. If you have ideas or thoughts about it, head over: [[Talk:Plain_dm-crypt_without_LUKS#Merge]]
+
--[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Splitting sections into separate pages ==
+
 
+
Does anyone else feel that 11,305 words is too long for a single article? I'd like to propose splitting this article across multiple pages. If MediaWiki's Subpages feature is enabled, this might be a good time to use it. The article contains many sections that are not greatly related to one another. For example, does one really need to know how to (section 6) encrypt a loopback filesystem or (section 3.2) use a keyfile in order to (section 3.3) encrypt a swap partition? It's common to encrypt a swap partition without using a keyfile or an encrypted loopback filesystem, so why are they discussed in the same article?
+
 
+
I acknowledge that all the sections are related to LUKS, but many of them are not dependent on each other. Having many vaguely related topics makes the article difficult to follow and maintain. I propose Subpages because subpages can show their relationship to LUKS (and other sections, just as an example: /LUKS/Configuration/Keyfiles). In the absence of Subpages, placing a general overview of LUKS in the main article -- and links to pages on more specific topics -- would also be an improvement. Separating sections into (sub)pages would also keep talk pages attuned to a specific subject.
+
 
+
I have some suggestions for improvement of individual sections as well, but I think separating sections would be a good first step. [[User:EscapedNull|EscapedNull]] ([[User talk:EscapedNull|talk]]) 14:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
:Hi, the article ''is'' among [[Special:LongPages|the longest]], splitting it into subpages could help not feeling overwhelmed by it, however a lot of care should be taken in doing it, that's why I think you've been very wise to start a discussion first. We've had a number of users working hard on it, in particular I'd like to point you to a recent discussion I had with [[User:Indigo]], [[#Encrypting_a_LVM_setup_.28ex_section_8.29]], on which we agreed on keeping [[Dm-crypt_with_LUKS#Encrypting_a_LVM_setup]] here instead of merging it to [[Encrypted LVM]]: moving it to a subpage would somehow conflict with that decision, so I'll try to invite [[User:Indigo|Indigo]] to discuss here with us on what to do now.
+
:Finally, just to answer your doubts, this wiki doesn't have the subpage feature enabled on the Main namespace, nonetheless subpages (i.e. article names with slashes) are already commonly used to keep series of related articles together, so that would indeed be the way to split this article.
+
:-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
==Confusing sentence==
+
Hi, this sentence "This should be repeated for all partitions except for /boot and possibly swap." is unclear to me; my noobish guess is that it means: "This should be repeated for all partitions and possibly swap, except for /boot" but I am unsure because it appears to mean "except /boot and possibly swap" but I imagine you wouldn't want swap to be unencrypted... Hmm, the more I think about it, it seems both variants seem equivalent though. [[User:EmanueLczirai|EmanueLczirai]] ([[User talk:EmanueLczirai|talk]]) 01:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
:Hi, that sentence means that you can't encrypt a boot partition (well, unless you have [[Wikipedia:Hardware-based full disk encryption|special hardware]]) and that you can or cannot encrypt a swap partition depending on how you're going to encrypt your system. Since it seems you are a bit confused on the topic, I suggest you go with the LVM-on-LUKS solution, which will let you encrypt your swap partition and use hibernation and suspension, see [[Dm-crypt_with_LUKS#Encrypting_a_LVM_setup]] and [[Encrypted LVM]]. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
::Thank you, much appreciated. I'll keep reading, I need to understand more before I go through with any of these. -- [[User:EmanueLczirai|EmanueLczirai]] ([[User talk:EmanueLczirai|talk]]) 03:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
==Dual meaning sentence==
+
In this sentence: "Symlinks can be used in the bootloaders "cryptkey" kernel option or anywhere else." Is there a missing comma or apostrophe at the end of the word "bootloaders", or is it "bootloader's" ? Thanks. -- [[User:EmanueLczirai|EmanueLczirai]] ([[User talk:EmanueLczirai|talk]]) 14:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
+

Latest revision as of 08:33, 10 April 2016

New idea

The philosophy behind the current old structure was to try to generalize the various steps for encrypting an entire system or a device and managing it, however we've noticed it's kind of hard. A new idea for reducing duplication of content while maintaining, if not improving, readability, would be to rename the "/Examples" subpage to "/Common Scenarios" and move it to first place in Dm-crypt with LUKS/draft, so it's used use the dm-crypt#Common scenarios section as the starting point by the readers. It should contain the most common uses for encryption, which IMO are:

Each of those scenarios should be mostly a stripped sequence of commands with short descriptions that should link to generic sections in the other subpages of Dm-crypt with LUKS dm-crypt, pointing out all the particular suggested adaptations that apply to that particular scenario.

The idea is quite clear in my mind, I hope I've managed to explain it well enough, I'll try to put it into practice and see if it raises major problems.

-- Kynikos (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: since Plain dm-crypt without LUKS would be merged here, the main article should be just renamed to dm-crypt. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: updated for current structure. -- Kynikos (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Scenario structure

Plenty of stuff to do, yet: Taking for granted we want an additional example with RAID sometime, it might be worth considering to split dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System into a subpage for (e.g.) dm-crypt/Encrypting a single disk system and dm-crypt/Encrypting a system across multiple disks scenarios. The latter covering "LUKS on LVM" and said RAID. Main reason: page length. If you agree, let's better do it now. --Indigo (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea at all! However IMHO the proposed titles are a bit misleading: I would go for dm-crypt/Encrypting a System on Physical Devices and dm-crypt/Encrypting a System on Virtual Devices, in fact you can use multiple physical disks in every case if you want. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: Note that the history of dm-crypt/Encrypting an Entire System should be preserved by moving it to one of the two titles, and then (or before) splitting the other page. -- Kynikos (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
+1 to your edit, I learned that from watching. The one letdown of this whole fun exercise is that the wiki engine does not seem to support basic content splits and joins preserving history. Anyhow, we might as well just keep it in mind and consider splitting it later (when there is something about RAID). Funnily, I find the use of "physical" (all blockdevices are on one) and "virtual" (suggests a qcow device) as differentiator not totally clear too. Let's meditate over it again until someone has another snappy idea. --Indigo (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)