Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Disabled users.mutableUsers conflicts with mutable overlay-based /etc #311665

Open
ivan770 opened this issue May 14, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Disabled users.mutableUsers conflicts with mutable overlay-based /etc #311665

ivan770 opened this issue May 14, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@ivan770
Copy link
Contributor

ivan770 commented May 14, 2024

Describe the bug

The following assertion triggers in a configuration where users.mutableUsers = false; and system.etc.overlay.mutable = true;:

{
assertion = config.systemd.sysusers.enable -> (config.users.mutableUsers == config.system.etc.overlay.mutable);
message = ''
When using systemd-sysusers and mounting `/etc` via an overlay, users
can only be mutable when `/etc` is mutable and vice versa.
'';
}

It should be possible to have a mutable /etc while using static systemd-sysusers configuration at the same time.

Steps To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Set users.mutableUsers to false
  2. Set system.etc.overlay.mutable to true
  3. Build the system

Expected behavior

The build succeeds.

Notify maintainers

From git blame: @nikstur

Metadata

Please run nix-shell -p nix-info --run "nix-info -m" and paste the result.

 - system: `"x86_64-linux"`
 - host os: `Linux 6.8.9, NixOS, 24.05 (Uakari), 24.05.20240513.cbd6db0`
 - multi-user?: `yes`
 - sandbox: `yes`
 - version: `nix-env (Nix) 2.22.0`
 - nixpkgs: `/etc/nix/inputs/nixpkgs`

Add a 👍 reaction to issues you find important.

@ivan770 ivan770 changed the title Disabled users.mutableUsers conflicts with immutable overlay-based /etc Disabled users.mutableUsers conflicts with mutable overlay-based /etc May 14, 2024
@nikstur
Copy link
Contributor

nikstur commented May 27, 2024

This cannot be done with the current implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants