From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F079942E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:29:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E3E91A74D for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:28:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 570F91A743 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 28EBB435D7; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:28:40 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1648726019.ahvwlgv5fi.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.179 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH 0/2] PoC for zfs native encryption in pve-installer X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:29:19 -0000 On March 31, 2022 12:22 am, Gregor Michels via pve-devel wrote: > Hello everybody ! >=20 > I wanted to have a fully encrypted PVE instance utilising the native > encryption of zfs. >=20 > Unfortunately the PVE installer itself does not support this usecase. > There are various guides out there that do a vanilla install and then > use zfs send and receive to encrypt the rootfs. > But that is tedious manual work. >=20 > Therefore I looked into the pve-installer repository and glued this > proof of concept together. > Because the initramfs support for a zfs encrypted rootfs is already > upstream in debian (or openzfs I'm not sure) I only needed to modify the > pool creation commands in proxinstall. >=20 > I also added a rudimentary text field in the "Advanced Options" section > of the zfs partitioning wizard to be able to input a passphrase. >=20 > This is by no means a "finished" implementation. >=20 > If you want to support this usecase officially in the installer I would > love to finish up the implementation. There are also some design > decision left to discuss. I think the following todos exist: >=20 > * have two text fields for the passphrase, just like the root password > * let the user choose an encryption alogorithm, instead of the default > shipped by OpenZFS > * enable "remote unblock" via ssh directly in the installer >=20 > Thank you in advance, > hirnpfirsich >=20 > Gregor Michels (2): > zfs_create_rpool: add support for native encryption > create_raid_advanced_grid: add text box for zfs native encryption >=20 > proxinstall | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) see the following two bugs: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2714 https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2350 the second contains some info why we have not pushed for built-in=20 support for ZFS native encryption yet. upstream is working on ironing=20 some of the kinks and we are monitoring the situation.