[arch-general] mkinitcpio hook for custom root decryption with systemd boot
florijanh at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 14:13:00 UTC 2020
This is a good example how to uncrypt via tpm
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, 16:03 Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general, <
arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Em julho 23, 2020 7:09 Riccardo Paolo Bestetti via arch-general escreveu:
> > I would like to change my current crypto setup in a way that would
> require more step to unlock the root than just typing in a passphares. For
> this reason, sd-encrypt clearly cannot serve my use case.
> What step would that be? And how it would be secure?
> > For this reason, I would like to write a custom hook to mount the root
> volume. Now, systemd boot doesn't have a concept of runtime hooks. Thus, I
> need to make a systemd unit that gets pulled in by cryptsetup.target in the
> place of systemd-cryptsetup at .service. (Basically, I need to replace the
> whole systemd-cryptsetup-generator and systemd-cryptsetup logic.)
> It doesn't need to be in place of, you can simply have a unit that runs
> either before or after systemd-cryptsetup at . Or you can even override
> systemd-cryptsetup to require your unit.
> There are several options.
> > However, I really have no idea on how to achieve this. Should I write a
> custom mkinitcpio hook which completely bypasses sd-crypt/cryptsetup.target
> and instead starts a different unit with my own decryption logic? Or is
> there a way to hook into cryptsetup.target and instruct it to pull in my
> logic instead of systemd-cryptsetup*?
> If you write a unit file and a script, they can probably be added to the
> FILES section and that would be it. Main issue is the enabling of the unit,
> so, for that, you would probably need a custom install hook.
> > Of course, the other possibility is to just stop using a systemd boot
> and instead setting up a busybox early userspace. Then it's just a matter
> of writing a shell script. However, since I'm already using systemd for
> everything - from the bootloader to userspace - I don't think it makes much
> sense to do that.
> If you use the base hook, you already have busybox on the initramfs.
> Giancarlo Razzolini
More information about the arch-general