On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 11:22:56PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 30.05.24 22:43, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
>
> > > What about combining two different secrets, such that _both_ must be
> > > accessible? At a minimum, something like HASH(SECRET1||SECRET2) is
> >
On Do, 30.05.24 17:08, Demi Marie Obenour (d...@invisiblethingslab.com) wrote:
> > Hmm, this is an interesting idea, I kinda like it. But I am not sure
> > how far this will get us, because I think even for FDE we eventually
> > want to store asymmetric keys, not symmetric ones (i.e. I think we
>
On Do, 30.05.24 22:43, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
> > What about combining two different secrets, such that _both_ must be
> > accessible? At a minimum, something like HASH(SECRET1||SECRET2) is
> > guaranteed to be available if and only if both SECRET1 and SECRET2 are
> >
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:43:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mi, 29.05.24 14:48, Demi Marie Obenour (d...@invisiblethingslab.com) wrote:
>
> > > > > (you can of course include PolicyAuthorizeNV in the policy you sign
> > > > > for PolicyAuthorize, but that doesn#t work, since we want t
On Mi, 29.05.24 14:48, Demi Marie Obenour (d...@invisiblethingslab.com) wrote:
> > > > (you can of course include PolicyAuthorizeNV in the policy you sign
> > > > for PolicyAuthorize, but that doesn#t work, since we want to pin the
> > > > local nvindex really, and allocate it localy, and the sign
On Mi, 29.05.24 14:42, Demi Marie Obenour (d...@invisiblethingslab.com) wrote:
> > Hence, maybe tickets aren't the way to go, they bring complexity, they
> > would make a pretty relevant feature of our policies go down the drain
> > – even though they would combine the two relevant policies correc
> Am I supposed to create file for PrimaryRootfs also, even
> if it does already exist, so that repart understand SecondaryRootfs has
> to be created? What, exactly, am I doing incorrectly, because I'm sure
> it is me not using the tool properly here, and no actual bug...
Yes, repartd tries to mat
Hi
Can anyone explain me what would be the expected behaviour of systemctl
suspend-then-hibernate if I have the following content on
/etc/systemd/sleep.conf.d/overrides.conf
[Sleep]
AllowSuspend=yes
AllowHibernation=yes
AllowSuspendThenHibernate=yes
HibernateMode=shutdown platform
HibernateDelayS
So, I use systemd-repart in an embedded system of mine. This system runs
systemd 254.9 and is custom made using buildroot.
I am attempting to do the following:
* Create a second root-arm partition with SecondaryRootfs label of 128
MB, and fill it with the content of the PrimaryRootfs partition.
Hello systemd developers,
On WSL2 + Ubuntu 24, I'm seeing systemd locking up. There doesn't
appear to be any log messages once it locks up, it stops reaping
zombie/defunct processes and responding to socket requests. I can
reliably reproduce it (just wait about 10 minutes), but I haven't the
sligh
On 2024-05-27 23:16, Jens Schmidt wrote:
> 2. A completely different approach would be to have journald reuse
>journal files across reboots, which does not seem to happen in my
>(default) journal configuration. Is that possible at all?
And that was the *real* question, solved with syste
11 matches
Mail list logo
