Re: [meta-ti][master][PATCH v7 3/3] conf: Enable dynamic security layer for LUKS

Shiva Tripathi <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.yoctoproject.lists.meta-ti
Message-ID <[email protected]>

On 3/19/26 20:28, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/19/2026 9:55 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 08:59:24AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via
>> lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/2026 5:35 AM, Shiva Tripathi wrote:
>>>> Register dynamic-layers/security in layer.conf with BBFILES_DYNAMIC
>>>> for both 'security' and 'tpm-layer' collections to conditionally
>>>> build LUKS encryption support when meta-security/meta-tpm layers
>>>> are present.
>>>>
>>>> Add meta-security to LAYERRECOMMENDS to document the optional
>>>> dependency for LUKS functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Update ti-core-initramfs.inc to auto-enable initramfs generation
>>>> when DISTRO_FEATURES contains 'luks'.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shiva Tripathi <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>>   meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf                            | 5 +++++
>>>>   meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc | 2 +-
>>>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
>>>> index f78da573..36d05b5a 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/layer.conf
>>>> @@ -20,10 +20,15 @@ LAYERDEPENDS_meta-ti-bsp = " \
>>>>   LAYERRECOMMENDS_meta-ti-bsp = " \
>>>>       openembedded-layer \
>>>> +    meta-security \
>>>>   "
>>>
>>> The layer should be same as below:  security and tpm-layer  I was
>>> just using meta-security as a placeholder.
>>
>> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that layer's collection name could be
>> different
>> from layer's directory name. Some maintainers keep them the same (e.g.
>> meta-ti-bsp), but some make them different (e.g. meta-security ->
>> security
>> and meta-tpm -> tpm-layer). It could be rather confusing...
>>
>>
>>>>   BBFILES_DYNAMIC += " \
>>>>       openembedded-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/openembedded-
>>>> layer/recipes*/*/*.bbappend \
>>>> +    security:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bb \
>>>> +    security:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/
>>>> *.bbappend \
>>>> +    tpm-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/*.bb \
>>>> +    tpm-layer:${LAYERDIR}/dynamic-layers/security/recipes*/*/
>>>> *.bbappend \
>>
>> Moreover - is there really a need to set up security top level layer
>> here? If
>> only TPM tools are needed, then just tpm-layer should be enough, even
>> when it
>> comes from within meta-security git repository.
>>
>> E.g., we set up openembedded-layer here, but that's not meta-
>> openembedded top
>> level, but instead meta-oe sub-layer inside meta-openembedded. There are
>> sub-layers in there, which are not needed for meta-ti-bsp dependency.
>> Same
>> thought goes to tpm-layer.
> 
> Then we would only be including the tpm-layer in the layer setup, so we
> should change the dynamic layer name to match in the second patch.
> 
> 

I was thinking security top layer would be providing LUKS/cryptsetup,
but on evaluating found it's not the case. Yes security can be removed,
tpm-layer is sufficient - verified after testing.

Will address these changes along with dynamic layer name change.

Thanks,
Shiva

>>
>>>>   "
>>>>   SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE += " \
>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> index 9d3cc612..15c05e04 100644
>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/ti-core-initramfs.inc
>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>>>>   #   TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED = "0"
>>>>   #
>>>>  
>>>> #------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "${@ '1' if
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES') or
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL') else '0'}"
>>>> +TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_ENABLED ?= "${@ '1' if
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES') or
>>>> d.getVar('TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL') or
>>>> bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'luks', True, False, d) else '0'}"
>>>>   TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES ?= ""
>>>>   TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_EXTRA_INSTALL ?= ""
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.