On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-12-20 15:07, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> There is an irony here: >> >> YaST doesn't have Btrfs raid1 or raid10 options; and also won't do >> encrypted root with Btrfs either because YaST enforces LVM to do LUKS >> encryption for some weird reason; and it also enforces NOT putting >> Btrfs on LVM. > > The 'LUKS must use LVM' thing is likely historical. The BCP for using LUKS > is that it's at the bottom level (so you leak absolutely nothing about how > your storage stack is structured), and if that's the case you need something > on top to support separate filesystems, which up until BTRFS came around has > solely been LVM. *shrug* Anaconda has supported plain partition LUKS without device-mapper for ext3/4 and XFS since forever, even before the rewrite. >> Meanwhile, Fedora/Red Hat's Anaconda installer has supported both of >> these use cases for something like 5 years (does support Btrfs raid1 >> and raid10 layouts; and also supports Btrfs directly on dmcrypt >> without LVM) - with the caveat that it enforces /boot to be on ext4. > > And this caveat is because for some reason Fedora has chosen not to > integrate BTRFS support into their version of GRUB. No. The Fedora patchset for upstream GRUB doesn't remove Btrfs support. However, they don't use grub-mkconfig to rewrite the grub.cfg when a new kernel is installed. Instead, they use an unrelated project called grubby, which modifies the existing grub.cfg (and also supports most all other configs like syslinux/extlinux, yaboot, uboot, lilo, and others). And grubby gets confused [1] if the grub.cfg is on a subvolume (other than ID 5). If the grub.cfg is in the ID 5 subvolume, in a normal directory structure, it works fine. Chris Murphy [1] Gory details The central part of the confusion appears to be this sequence of comments in this insanely long bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198#c3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198#c5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198#c6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198#c7 The comments from Gene Czarcinski (now deceased, that's how old this bug is) try to negotiate understanding the problem and he had a fix but it didn't meet some upstream grubby requirement, and so the patch wasn't accepted. Grubby is sufficiently messy that near as I can tell no other distribution uses it, and no one really cares to maintain it until something in RHEL breaks and then *that* gets attention. Upstream bug https://github.com/rhboot/grubby/issues/22 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
