From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <arno@wagner.name>
Received: from v6.tansi.org (mail.tansi.org [87.118.116.4])
 by mail.server123.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri,  5 Feb 2016 16:57:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gatewagner.dyndns.org (77-57-36-72.dclient.hispeed.ch
 [77.57.36.72]) by v6.tansi.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D26DD20DC530
 for <dm-crypt@saout.de>; Fri,  5 Feb 2016 16:57:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:57:43 +0100
From: Arno Wagner <arno@wagner.name>
Message-ID: <20160205155743.GA32705@tansi.org>
References: <CAFnMBaRfu93jkgmZ_vLDChF7Uv-dCE6dNN6YkSxU3EFvn8iHtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B20C05.7080307@gmail.com>
 <56B25914.5090204@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de>
 <56B30DE8.1060502@gmail.com>
 <20160204092017.GA25029@yeono.kjorling.se>
 <56B37D92.2030306@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de>
 <20160204172311.GB20874@tansi.org> <n92dtd$hv9$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <n92dtd$hv9$1@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] The future of disk encryption with LUKS2
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 Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 16:08:28 CET, Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 02/04/2016 11:23 AM, Arno Wagner wrote:
> >On the other hand, resizing a Luks container with a
> >filesystem in there without killing that filesystem is
> >already complicated enough that I usually just recomend
> >a backup and recreation instead of a resize.
> 
> Making an already difficult process more complex isn't going to
> win many friends.  Sounds like what you need is a "--resizefs"
> option like the one LVM's lvresize uses to invoke fsadm(8).

And thereby limit what filesystem can be in there? That is
a rather gross layering-violation and not a good idea.

Do not forget that backup and restore need to be tested
and the backup done regularly anyways if the data has any 
worth. I an not asking people to do anything new. (Well, 
except for those with only throwaway-data in their encrypted 
containers....)

Regards,
Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner,     Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform.,    Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: CB5D9718  FP: 12D6 C03B 1B30 33BB 13CF  B774 E35C 5FA1 CB5D 9718
----
A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -- Plato

If it's in the news, don't worry about it.  The very definition of 
"news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier