From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <wagner@tansi.org>
Received: from mail.saout.de ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mail.saout.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id zYbGe3qOgxvf for <dm-crypt@saout.de>;
 Fri,  5 Aug 2011 16:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from v4.tansi.org (ns.km33513-03.keymachine.de [87.118.94.3])
 by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri,  5 Aug 2011 16:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gatewagner.dyndns.org (84-74-166-21.dclient.hispeed.ch
 [84.74.166.21]) by v4.tansi.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 144EF206039
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri,  5 Aug 2011 16:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:52:29 +0200
From: Arno Wagner <arno@wagner.name>
Message-ID: <20110805145229.GB15345@tansi.org>
References: <CAOOH3pqkS91HeAxta490Xpr3NT_g+=TWh49NyPO3xYs4XwjO5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOOH3prY2scQMY9MPv0n31S+vAYoSEgWCyz+3pNa7HNN-U76sQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E3B5378.2070003@redhat.com>
 <CAOOH3poMKtT0j_Uuuy9bmEepMgVwpmi5s-awqS5O8R19u34xHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOOH3ppo9zNQ14cTe_qw-iz0yKwqJSDgwTyOJ6OBL_3BFmj-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E3BFB4F.9050508@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E3BFB4F.9050508@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] How can a passphrase be incorrect even after
 `luksHeaderBackup` and `luksHeaderRestore`?
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: dm-crypt@saout.de

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 02:11 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> >> No, as from the output above, I do not see the same problem. What
> >> could be the reason for this difference in behaviour?
> > 
> > On #lvm Milan suggested that the problem lies with the new drive
> > having some misalignment
> 
> I have checked the dump and there is clear corruption of first keyslot
> (0x1000 - 0x1400 offset).
> 
> I'll try to find the source of problem now.
> 
> Milan

Hi Milan,

just a thought: May this be a stray v1.2 RAID/md superblock?
They are at 4k offset from the device start according to this:

https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID_superblock_formats

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name 
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

If it's in the news, don't worry about it.  The very definition of 
"news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier