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 irPbSwdmZQYR for <dm-crypt@saout.de>;
 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:52:46 +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>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:52:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
 by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8KEqhKF015256
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:52:44 -0400
Received: from [10.34.26.53] (tawny.brq.redhat.com [10.34.26.53])
 by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id
 p8KEqgMn023064
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:52:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4E78A8BA.40104@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:52:42 +0200
From: Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1316515022.7965.31.camel@zarniwoop>
 <20110920114724.GA21251@tansi.org> <4E789174.1090607@redhat.com>
 <20110920141431.GA23126@tansi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110920141431.GA23126@tansi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] (More) Questions about LUKS / LVM
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 09/20/2011 04:14 PM, Arno Wagner wrote:
> Seems to me the kernel folks are not happy woth the > 0.90 
> formats either or autodetection would work for them.
> 
> No idea what I am going to to when I hit the 2TB size 
> restriction on the 0.90 metadata format, but that will still
> be a while. 

The real problem (and IMHO this caused several LUKS overwrites recently)
is that sometimes it is impossible to distinguish if it is partition or
the whole device it is referring. See mdadm man page:

| 0.90 format superblock.
| This format limits arrays to 28 component devices and limits
| component devices of levels 1 and  greater  to  2  terabytes.
| It  is  also possible for there to be confusion about whether
| the superblock applies to a whole device or just the last partition,
| if that partition starts on a 64K boundary.

(Unfortunately, seems MD wiki with more precise description is still down
because of the kernel.org/linuxfoundation servers security breach...)

Milan