Hi Thomas,

Quick answer; apologies if I miss some subtleties.

Thomas Albers 写道：
> My suggestion would be to add a "extra-options" field to
> <mapped-device> structure. This field would be appended to the 
> command
> line arguments to the cryptsetup call.
>
> One could also add a "keyfile" parameter but this would be too
> specific to the luks device mapper

Well, so is a field to add crypsetup-specific command-line 
arguments.

Abstracting this into meaningful field names like key-file is 
better from a readability point of view and allows implementation 
details like ‘we simply invoke cryptsetup’ to remain properly 
hidden from view.

Because naturally, one day cryptsetup will be rewritten in Guile.

> For example, not everyone would like to store the keyfile inside 
> the
> store.

I think it could still be a plain string passed straight to 
cryptsetup, with the user responsible for its existence.

> Also, is it possible to modify existing code for such small 
> changes,
> without needing to rewrite complete functions? Many of the 
> functions
> used are not exposed by the modules and one needs to rewrite the
> function one wants to use and also its dependencies.

You can force access to unexported symbols using (@@ (name of 
module) symbol).  It's as recommended as it sounds.  Nor can you 
rewrite parts of compiled procedures AFAIK.

> My last question would be: Why is the file called initrd, when 
> in
> reality a initramfs scheme is used?

Saves space :-)

Conceptually, they are the same thing.  Nobody who knows what 
‘initrd’ means will read the word in 2021 and think the 
distribution literally only supports pre-2005 ramdisks.

It also keeps us consistent with GRUB, which uses ‘initrd’.

Kind regards,

T G-R