Closed RlndVt closed 2 months ago
Reviewed. Now we may take a break and wait for any of our PRs to get merged :)
@RlndVt could you rebase this?
Thanks for the heads up, I've started looking into it.
I'm not sure I understand the failing check; I believe "treefmt-check" is unhappy with the format of the code?
Sorry for the force-push spam. treefmt-check
is a fickle beast.
In response to asking Kent to take a look:
On 19/05/2024 18:33, Kent Overstreet kent.overstreet@linux.dev wrote:
I'm still catching up from conferences, but - it's not my preferred approach since it's easy to misuse, I know there's legitimate use cases but this makes it particularly easy for users to dumb things and leave their systems easy to compromise.
Could you chat with Tony about other options? There's a couple (safer) things we still need, perhaps one of them will do what you need.
On Wednesday, June 5th, 2024 at 3:04 PM, Kent Overstreet kent.overstreet@linux.dev wrote:
I'm not going to merge this; I've seen plenty of suggesteniosn for alternative workflows elsewhere.
I've asked (him and Tony) what the other options/alternative workflows are but no response yet.
Conclusion for this PR is still the same: won't be merged. Same (most likely) goes for #266.
A gist on how I mount my encrypted array at boot:
https://gist.github.com/RlndVt/7055be264c9492064d3523c8e74ea0a3
Expansion of @donmor's work in #266