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

Re: [solved securely now??] What is the correct way to set encrypted swap with systemd?

Quoting Paul E Condon (pecondon@mesanetworks.net):
> I read the prior discussion as taking for granted the idea that one
> must have only one method of identifying individual partitions,

If you're referring to my post (which you quoted), then the opposite
is true. The opening paragraphs argues against LABELs as a panacea,
but later ones (and another posting in this thread) reveal that I use
them routinely in what are the right circumstances for me.

(With top-posting, it can be difficult to tell precisely what you're
commenting on.)

> and
> that that method must be the latest to have arrived on the scene. For
> example, if everyone else in the world accepts your idea that
> LABEL=sda1 on the partition that was /dev/sda1 when Debian was
> installed is something that should *not*be*done*, *then* I can be very
> confident that my disk will not cause problems *because*of*an*identity*
> *clash*.

That may be true for you personally, but your idea scales up to just
one computer. I have several. So do many others. Any time your LABEL is
"correct", it's redundant, and when it's made "incorrect" by changing
circumstances, it's confusing.

> The whole scenario is false anyway. Who would let a disk
> arrives at his facility in the hands of a stranger be *mount*ed
> without first putting it in a USB disk carrier and using some system
> tools to take a look at what is recorded on it?  And why would I offer
> my disk to anyone without *telling* them how it is labeled?

Facility? Stranger? In my post I suggested that any one person, who
had taken your advice and LABELled their root partition as "sda1",
might take said drive out of that computer and put it into another one
of theirs, whereupon /dev/disk/by-label will have an entry like this:

total 0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Mar 31 13:44 sda1 -> ../../sdb1

Confusing, unnecessary, avoidable.

> I see the argument here, mine as well as yours, as a clash of wildly
> imaginative false scenarios. 

Summarising: names/labels are important. Advising sda1 as a LABEL is
not a good idea.

If you want a reference, take a look at RFC1178, page 2:
"Don't overload other terms already in common use."


Reply to: