On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 04:52:29PM +0200, 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: > > https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID_superblock_formats > And an additional thought: If using /etc/raidtab instead of autodetection (or a similar mechanism), is it possible the RAID superblock gets rewritten on boot and destroys the LUKS keyslot? I have no idea whether this is possible, as I only ever used autodetection and distrust distro automagic even in Debian. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@xxxxxxxxxxx GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans If it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." -- Bruce Schneier _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
