From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mbroz@redhat.com>
Received: from mail.saout.de ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mail.saout.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id gniVYDu51vqf for <dm-crypt@saout.de>;
 Fri,  5 Aug 2011 19:47:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by mail.saout.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri,  5 Aug 2011 19:47:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
 by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p75HlC8F019862
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:47:12 -0400
Received: from [10.34.26.53] (tawny.brq.redhat.com [10.34.26.53])
 by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
 p75HlBMO007133
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:47:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3C2C9E.9070601@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:47:10 +0200
From: Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOOH3pqkS91HeAxta490Xpr3NT_g+=TWh49NyPO3xYs4XwjO5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOOH3prY2scQMY9MPv0n31S+vAYoSEgWCyz+3pNa7HNN-U76sQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E3B5378.2070003@redhat.com>
 <CAOOH3poMKtT0j_Uuuy9bmEepMgVwpmi5s-awqS5O8R19u34xHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOOH3ppo9zNQ14cTe_qw-iz0yKwqJSDgwTyOJ6OBL_3BFmj-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E3BFB4F.9050508@redhat.com> <20110805145229.GB15345@tansi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110805145229.GB15345@tansi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] How can a passphrase be incorrect even after
 `luksHeaderBackup` and `luksHeaderRestore`?
List-Id: <dm-crypt.saout.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/options/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.saout.de/pipermail/dm-crypt>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-crypt@saout.de>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt>,
 <mailto:dm-crypt-request@saout.de?subject=subscribe>
To: dm-crypt@saout.de

On 08/05/2011 04:52 PM, Arno Wagner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
>> On 08/05/2011 02:11 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>> No, as from the output above, I do not see the same problem. What
>>>> could be the reason for this difference in behaviour?
>>>
>>> On #lvm Milan suggested that the problem lies with the new drive
>>> having some misalignment
>>
>> I have checked the dump and there is clear corruption of first keyslot
>> (0x1000 - 0x1400 offset).
>>
>> I'll try to find the source of problem now.
>>
>> Milan
> 
> Hi Milan,
> 
> just a thought: May this be a stray v1.2 RAID/md superblock?
> They are at 4k offset from the device start according to this:

yes, but not the superblock but the RAID1 bitmap. even mdadm --zero-superblock
keep the RAID1 bitmap intact.
With MD format 1.2 it is exactly area where I see it now.

So, the first question: what was "cat /proc/mdstat" when doing luksHeaderRestore
(which apparently failed)? Was that drive still in use in some raid?

Milan