From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [159.69.161.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.server123.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:16:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j1xUO-000R09-9B for dm-crypt@saout.de; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:16:00 +0100 From: Robert Nichols Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:15:52 -0600 Message-ID: References: <0089ec51-ddaa-b572-2b9a-2fdb56b7c1c2@redhat.com> <0eaccf2a-dd30-1b8f-436f-25dd64ac58a9@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <0eaccf2a-dd30-1b8f-436f-25dd64ac58a9@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] Expanding a LUKS partition to a second drive. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dm-crypt@saout.de On 2/12/20 9:01 AM, Ondrej Kozina wrote: > On 2/12/20 3:29 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: >> On 2/12/20 4:45 AM, Ondrej Kozina wrote: >>> On 2/11/20 8:21 PM, James Dehnert wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not sure where the LUKS volume is created in respect to LVM.  I can't tell if its created directly on the physical volume, on the volume group, or on the logical volume, so I'm noy sure where I should be looking to expand the substrate.  Or if this is even possible. >>> >>> See lsblk output with said active LUKS device. That should give you a hint. >>> >>> If the PV is encrypted (LUKS on top of /dev/sdx and PV on top of LUKS) there's no way how to extend one LUKS device over two devices or partitions. We don't want cryptsetup to became yet another logical volume management:) >> >> True, but it's simple enough to create a second LUKS volume and extend an existing LVM VG into that LUKS volume. > > Sure, but "having multiple LUKS devices" vs "having one LUKS (logical) device managing multiple physical devices" are two completely different problems. Although I agree with you that having two LUKS encrypted PVs would solve this specific problem. > > What I'm saying is that cryptsetup will not support managing multiple data devices. I'm inclined to add "ever" to last sentence, but I'm not upstream maintainer:) I agree 100%. My suggestion was just addressing the current problem. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it.