Re: [meta-ti][master][PATCH v7 3/3] conf: Enable dynamic security layer for LUKS

[Shiva Tripathi <s-tripathi1@ti.com>]

On 3/19/26 20:28, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/19/2026 9:55 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 08:59:24AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via
>> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/2026 5:35 AM, Shiva Tripathi wrote:
>>>> Register dynamic-layers/security in layer.conf with BBFILES_DYNAMIC
>>>> for both 'security' and 'tpm-layer' collections to conditionally
>>>> build LUKS encryption support when meta-security/meta-tpm layers
>>>> are present.
>>>>
>>>> Add meta-security to LAYERRECOMMENDS to document the optional
>>>> dependency for LUKS functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Update ti-core-initramfs.inc to auto-enable initramfs generation
>>>> when DISTRO_FEATURES contains 'luks'.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shiva Tripathi <s-tripathi1@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf                            | 5 +++++
>>>>   meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc | 2 +-
>>>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
>>>> index f78da573..36d05b5a 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
>>>> @@ -20,10 +20,15 @@ LAYERDEPENDS_meta-ti-bsp = " \
>>>>   LAYERRECOMMENDS_meta-ti-bsp = " \
>>>>       openembedded-layer \
>>>> +    meta-security \
>>>>   "
>>>
>>> The layer should be same as below:  security and tpm-layer  I was
>>> just using meta-security as a placeholder.
>>
>> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that layer's collection name could be
>> different
>> from layer's directory name. Some maintainers keep them the same (e.g.
>> meta-ti-bsp), but some make them different (e.g. meta-security ->
>> security
>> and meta-tpm -> tpm-layer). It could be rather confusing...
>>
>>
>>>>   BBFILES_DYNAMIC += " \
>>>>       openembedded-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/openembedded-
>>>> layer/recipes*/*/*.bbappend \
>>>> +    security:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bb \
>>>> +    security:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/
>>>> *.bbappend \
>>>> +    tpm-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bb \
>>>> +    tpm-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/
>>>> *.bbappend \
>>
>> Moreover - is there really a need to set up security top level layer
>> here? If
>> only TPM tools are needed, then just tpm-layer should be enough, even
>> when it
>> comes from within meta-security git repository.
>>
>> E.g., we set up openembedded-layer here, but that's not meta-
>> openembedded top
>> level, but instead meta-oe sub-layer inside meta-openembedded. There are
>> sub-layers in there, which are not needed for meta-ti-bsp dependency.
>> Same
>> thought goes to tpm-layer.
> 
> Then we would only be including the tpm-layer in the layer setup, so we
> should change the dynamic layer name to match in the second patch.
> 
> 

I was thinking security top layer would be providing LUKS/cryptsetup,
but on evaluating found it's not the case. Yes security can be removed,
tpm-layer is sufficient - verified after testing.

Will address these changes along with dynamic layer name change.

Thanks,
Shiva

>>
>>>>   "
>>>>   SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE += " \
>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> index 9d3cc612..15c05e04 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>>>>   #   TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED = "0"
>>>>   #
>>>>  
>>>> #------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "${@ '1' if
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES') or
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL') else '0'}"
>>>> +TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "${@ '1' if
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES') or
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL') or
>>>> bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'luks', True, False, d) else '0'}"
>>>>   TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES ?= ""
>>>>   TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
>