Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
*: add LUKS #960
*: add LUKS #960
Changes from all commits
882a65a
5bd63f3
b866d91
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's not block on this, but I think
fetch-offline
should probably also check whether any Tang pins are present andSignalNeedNet()
in that case. We can do that in a follow-up though!Hmm, and then the rootmap code could also check if LUKS devices in the root block device tree are Tang-pinned and adds
rd.neednet=1
to the BLS for subsequent boots.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Whoops, yeah, forgot about
fetch-offline
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
WDYT about allowing an anonymous thumbprint? I can go either way on this. Tang is based on zero knowledge; the Tang server doesn't know the secret. Some "sugar" could allow for querying for the thumbprint.
Another big of sugar would be check the Tang server at this point to check the thumbprint and bail on the operation if there's a mismatch before doing the encryption and handing off to Clevis.
Note: consider this comment a nit for future consideration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I'm following, are you suggesting that we allow just the specification of the server and auto trust it despite not being given a thumbprint? I'm not sure I'd be in favor of that. I think I'd rather put the extra workload on the user at config generation time to know the URL & thumbprint.
I'd probably punt from the initial PR but I like the concept.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right :) Let's get this out of the door. Just an idea for future improvement.