[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Lenny general freeze ahead


looking at the changes in live-initramfs v1.132.1

there is the following change:

@@ -979,7 +965,7 @@
 			rofslist="${image} ${rofslist}"
 		elif [ -f "${image}" ]
-			backdev=$(get_backing_device "${image}")
+			backdev=$(get_backing_device "${image}" "-r")
 			fstype=$(get_fstype "${backdev}")
 			if [ "${fstype}" = "unknown" ]
				panic "Unknown file system type on ${backdev} (${image})"

			mkdir -p "${croot}/${imagename}"
			echo "debug: Mounting backdev \"${backdev}\" (image = ${image}) on 
croot/imagename \"${croot}/${imagename}\""
			mount -t "${fstype}" -o ro,noatime "${backdev}" "${croot}/${imagename}" || 
panic "Can not mount ${backdev} (${image}) on ${croot}/${imagename}" && 
rofsstring="${croot}/${imagename}=${roopt}:${rofsstring}" && 
rofslist="${croot}/${imagename} ${rofslist}"

considering that the mount command also is done with the readonly option, What 
is the finality of invoking losetup with the option -r ?
Also consider that if the invoked losetup command is the Busybox internal 
command, the booting process will fail with an error for unknown option,


Jordi Pujol

El Thursday 05 June 2008 12:22:50 Jordi Pujol va escriure:
> El Thursday 05 June 2008 11:34:39 v?reu escriure:
> > I did not choose to install loop-aes. It only broke my setup.
> >
> > > ?Observe that the option -r is not present in the Busybox command
> > > losetup, Even we can affirm that it does not matter, due that aufs
> > > joins that loop devices with the options real-read-only or read-only.
> >
> > That's bad because loop-aes can be installed even if it is not
> > necessary, and this gives two losetup versions so incompatible that
> > there cannot be a reasonably complex script that would work with both.
> Yes, I think so also,
> I believe that the cryptoloop module in the kernel can do the same or
> better than loop-aes,
> then I never install loop-aes, even more, loop-aes should be prohibited
> loop-aes package includes a replacement for the loop kernel module and
> another losetup command, that breaks the correct working of some utilities,
> expecting to found functions included into the loop module, and are not
> present or do not work in the loop module of loop-aes,
> in example the uloop module included in the aufs-source package.
> Regards,
> Jordi Pujol

Reply to: