From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from v6.tansi.org (mail.tansi.org [87.118.116.4]) by mail.server123.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:58:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from gatewagner.dyndns.org (77-57-36-72.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.57.36.72]) by v6.tansi.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 72E0E20DC530 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:58:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:58:54 +0100 From: Arno Wagner Message-ID: <20160206025854.GA5986@tansi.org> References: <56B20C05.7080307@gmail.com> <56B25914.5090204@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de> <56B30DE8.1060502@gmail.com> <20160204092017.GA25029@yeono.kjorling.se> <56B37D92.2030306@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de> <20160204172311.GB20874@tansi.org> <20160205155743.GA32705@tansi.org> <56B5356B.3030704@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56B5356B.3030704@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de> Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] The future of disk encryption with LUKS2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de It might be the time of night, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.... Regards, Arno On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 00:51:07 CET, Sven Eschenberg wrote: > It should be noted here, that LVM is incapable to resize when > there'S multiple metadata areas (and that is certainly not a > coincidence). > > Arno, remember, that type of resizing usually only refers to > filesystems that can be resized online and which is done by the FS > itself (as in intriniscly). This is of course a limitation, but then > again, who'd want to resize a dmcrypt container instead of > recreating it, when using a filesystem that cannot be resized? That > does not make too much sense too me, cause recreating the dm-crypt > container is merely a single minor extra step when you recreate the > filesystem anyway. > > Regards > > -Sven > > Am 05.02.2016 um 16:57 schrieb Arno Wagner: > >On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 16:08:28 CET, Robert Nichols wrote: > >>On 02/04/2016 11:23 AM, Arno Wagner wrote: > >>>On the other hand, resizing a Luks container with a > >>>filesystem in there without killing that filesystem is > >>>already complicated enough that I usually just recomend > >>>a backup and recreation instead of a resize. > >> > >>Making an already difficult process more complex isn't going to > >>win many friends. Sounds like what you need is a "--resizefs" > >>option like the one LVM's lvresize uses to invoke fsadm(8). > > > >And thereby limit what filesystem can be in there? That is > >a rather gross layering-violation and not a good idea. > > > >Do not forget that backup and restore need to be tested > >and the backup done regularly anyways if the data has any > >worth. I an not asking people to do anything new. (Well, > >except for those with only throwaway-data in their encrypted > >containers....) > > > >Regards, > >Arno > > > _______________________________________________ > dm-crypt mailing list > dm-crypt@saout.de > http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., Email: arno@wagner.name GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718 FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718 ---- A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato If it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier