Re: Got tired of waiting for suspend/resume (something like that)
On Thu 01 Feb 2018 at 17:48:18 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote:
> David Wright (2018-02-01):
> > That assumes it's stable. The OP said it's not. I'm making no judgment
> > on the matter.
>
> The OP described the use of an ephemeral key to encrypt the swap. Are
> you familiar with that practice?
Vaguely, so I just googled it. That led me to
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dm-crypt/Swap_encryption
Looking through this, I think I might have been regurgitating
the section "UUID and LABEL" which describes how to share a
filesystem and swapspace. Their main aim appears to be
reducing the chances of accidental corruption.
Later the page goes on to describe suspend/resume but not with
a random key. Some people might see that as a challenge, others
as an opportunity. I make no judgment of such people.
The page is very baroque; last update 2018-01-08.
> If not, better acknowledge it and let
> the conversation pass by you.
>
> > The contents will be wanted if it's being used for resume which is in
> > the Subject line. (I didn't write it.)
>
> You completely misunderstood the problem. The swap is waited by initrd
> for resume, but that is not wanted by the user. It is a bug of newer
> versions of initramfs-tools that try to set up resume automatically and
> do not detect ephemeral keys.
I didn't try to guess whether the OP used suspend/hibernate etc. nor
whether they might in future. And I'm sorry it took you a long time
to find your fix to your problem.
> > AIUI, again, correct me if I'm wrong, partition names and UUIDs are
> > modern, non-baroque contraptions introduced with GPT.
>
> Indeed. On the other hand, LVM also allows to make a partition-like
> system with labels.
Not everyone is using them.
> > Of course, the filesystem LABEL and UUID reside in the filesystem.
> > That's why a mechanism exists to have a filesystem and swap space
> > in the same partition. I'd be interested to know why the offset was
> > introduced if not for such a purpose. Just interested, you understand.
> > I have no axe to grind. Remember, I'm not the OP. I only know what the
> > OP tells us.
>
> These options have been introduced for some reason, they do not matter.
They do if mention of them causes people to look at whether the
options, or some part of them, could be useful.
> What matters is that a lot of people, when confronted with a problem,
> will not take time and try to understand how it all fits together.
> Instead, they will just take the first solution they think of, implement
> it, find drawbacks, fix them the same way, entering an endless loop of
> piling kludges over kludges. I know several people who function like
> that.
Of course, you know that the only fix is the one you suggested in the BTS.
Best not to think about any other options.
> The solution you quoted is a perfect example of that. Better learn to
> recognize them rather than propagate them.
BTW you could cut the patronising tone without harming your ability to
argue a point.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: