On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 7:07 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 06:57:07AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 6:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:56:32AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore via devel wrote: > > > > In my case, I have Network Manager config files included in my initrd > > > > and bootargs to bring up the network so that I get automatic disk > > > > decryption while on my home network, and prompted for a password when > > > > I am not at home. I think this a reasonable enough use case it should > > > > be considered in the long term plan. There was an effort many years > > > > ago that built the initramfs with the kernel, it was abandoned due to > > > > not being able to guarantee sources for the binaries in the initramfs, > > > > trying to dig up the details I am having trouble finding it, but legal > > > > blocked it there is a reference to it in an old FESCo meeting > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178220.html. > > > > > > I can't see any legal problem with source provision for the > > > binaries inside the initramfs. We're building the initrds and > > > UKIs inside koji, so we have a clear record of exactly what > > > binary RPMs went into the package, and thus have knowledge > > > of what sources are involved. This is the same situation we > > > already have in Fedora with libguestfs, where we're building > > > a disk image inside Koji bundling various binaries. Or for > > > that matter, not really different from building cloud disk > > > images, or any other deliverable that bundles together some > > > binaries from other RPMs and spits out some kind of image > > > or archive. > > > > > > > Additionally, we should also consider > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DracutHostOnly and the size > > > > implications and why we moved to have kernel-core, kernel-modules, and > > > > kernel-modules-extra for cloud and different use cases. > > > > > > The UKI size for a VM should not be appreciably different from the > > > combination of the vmluinuz + locally generated initrd. The UKI > > > will contain a few more modules, as its initrd is built to cope > > > with Xen, VMware, HyperV + KVM[1], but this only adds a small amount > > > over a truly minimal initrd targetting 1 hypervisor. So I don't > > > expect the size of the UKI will be a problem. > > > > > > > You need to add VirtualBox too. That's an incredibly common platform > > for Fedora to run as a guest. > > That's easy enough, what kmod is typically required for disks in > VirtualBox ? > I'm not sure as I don't use VirtualBox myself, but Hans de Geode would know, since he upstreamed the guest additions some time ago... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
