<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - nofail option in /etc/crypttab has no effect" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54210#c2">Comment # 2</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - nofail option in /etc/crypttab has no effect" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54210">bug 54210</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:seschwar@googlemail.com" title="seschwar@googlemail.com">seschwar@googlemail.com</a> <pre>On 2012-09-26 at 20:57 +0000 Matthew Monaco <<a href="mailto:dgbaley27@0x01b.net">dgbaley27@0x01b.net</a>> wrote: > It looks like "nofail" applies to cryptsetup.target. So while > your device failed, cryptsetup.target succeeded without it. I had missed that. With the nofail option the status of cryptsetup.target is "active" and without it it is "inactive (dead)". However in both cases the boot process is the same. systemd waits until the device times out and then continues booting normally. > It seems like what you want to do is reduce the timeout for > dev/disk/by/uuid/e3c24abf-143a-4d84-92b1-113f02a49a16.device How do I do that? The timeout option described in man:crypttab(5) is for the timeout of the password prompt and not of the device. Is there something like fstab's x-systemd.device-timeout for crypttab? Moreover I think that crypttab's manual page suggests that the nofail already implies an immediate timeout: > The system will not wait for the device to show up (...) As I see it this is a mismatch between the documentation and the implementation and probably the source of my confusion.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>