Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 123305 - LUKS support for genkernel
Summary: LUKS support for genkernel
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 122421
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
URL: http://luks.endorphin.org
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-18 11:14 UTC by Clemens Fruhwirth
Modified: 2006-02-18 11:17 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
patched patch for LUKS support in genkernel. (genkernel.diff,3.33 KB, patch)
2006-02-18 11:17 UTC, Clemens Fruhwirth
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Clemens Fruhwirth 2006-02-18 11:14:36 UTC
LUKS is a Linux Hard Disk Encryption solution. See
http://gentoo-wiki.com/SECURITY_System_Encryption_DM-Crypt_with_LUKS

Creating an initrd manually is quite boring. Here is the patch that adds LUKS support to genkernel. To boot into a root LUKS volume, one has to supply 

real_root=luks:<LUKS-device>

as boot option. I decided for this syntax as it has some similarties to URLs.. for instance luks:/dev/sda3. I like that better over an autoprobing magic.

The patch is quite simple and diffed against 3.3.10. I didn't bother to make a clean diff against the source tarball, but I'm sure you can quickly figure out how it's meant to be applied.
Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-02-18 11:15:55 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 122421 ***
Comment 2 Clemens Fruhwirth 2006-02-18 11:17:58 UTC
Created attachment 80117 [details, diff]
patched patch for LUKS support in genkernel.

Here are all components needed for proper LUKS support in genkernel. This makes Gentoo the first distro that can use encryption on root fs out of the box. Simply supply real_root=luks:/your/luks/device as boot option. 

You have to take a look at the patch to figure out how it has to be applied, but I presume any reasonable maintainer would have done this even without this remark. 

You might also want to factor out "is_static".