Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #226833

Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ...

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed 09 Sep 2020 at 08:53:20 (-0600), Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> rhkramer@gmail.com writes:
> > On Tuesday, September 08, 2020 04:39:05 PM David Christensen wrote:
> >> Neither the string "2 MiB" nor the string "2 M" appear on page you have
> >> cited.
> >
> > That is correct, that's is what I have not found on that page.
> >  
> >> Please provide a URL that advocates "start the first partition at 2 MIB"
> >
> > Maybe I misinterpreted what David Wright said in an email responding to one of 
> > my questions back in June.
> >
> > <quote>
> > Subject: Re: Advice on encrypted filesystem
> > Date: Friday, June 26, 2020, 09:25:49 AM
> > From: David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> >
> > ---< snip >---
> >
> > If encrypting an entire disk, scramble the disk first, then partition.
> > If only encrypting a partition, partition the disk first.
> > *Alignments should be at least 2M (4096 x 512B sectors).*
> > Scramble any sensitive pre-existing contents:
> > </quote>
> >
> > I took that to mean that the first partition should start at 2 MiB.
> 
> That doesn't follow -- 0 is 2 MiB-aligned (it's also aligned on whatever
> other size boundary you care to name, of course).

Care to explain how you align the first partition with the start of the disk?

Cheers,
David.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
  Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
  Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 19:00 +0200
    Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-08 22:40 +0200
      Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-08 23:50 +0200
        Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-09 00:50 +0200
        Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 17:10 +0200
          Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-10 03:30 +0200
            Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 08:10 +0200
              Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 18:50 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 00:40 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 05:10 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 06:20 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
              Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 01:20 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 05:50 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 16:30 +0200
                Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-09-11 22:10 +0200
        Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple of 4096 bytes ... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-09 17:20 +0200
          Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 18:30 +0200
            Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-09 19:10 +0200
  Re: Why start the first partition at 2 MIB, why not at any multiple  of 4096 bytes ... Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-09-08 23:10 +0200

csiph-web