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

nixos/luksroot: Backport #50281 #51354

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 2, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@dasJ
Copy link
Contributor

dasJ commented Dec 2, 2018

Backport of #50281. I hope this is the correct branch.

The new reuse behaviour is cool and really useful but it breaks one of
my use cases. When using kexec, I have a script which will unlock the
disks in my initrd. However, do_open_passphrase will fail if the disk is
already unlocked.

Motivation for this change

The new behaviour breaks my setup right now and it's neither a real solution to not have kexec-and-unlock (server at remote location) nor to use unstable (it's unstable).
So I hope this can get backported.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@worldofpeace

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

worldofpeace commented Dec 2, 2018

I hope this is the correct branch.

Since that change was delivered to master, this should go to release-18.09.
(at least I think so)

Also, please use git cherry-pick -xe

https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#submitting-changes-stable-release-branches

nixos/luksroot: Check whether the device already exists
The new reuse behaviour is cool and really useful but it breaks one of
my use cases. When using kexec, I have a script which will unlock the
disks in my initrd. However, do_open_passphrase will fail if the disk is
already unlocked.

(cherry picked from commit 9cd4ce9)
Reason: The new behaviour breaks my existing setup and I'd like to have
it fixed before March.

@dasJ dasJ force-pushed the dasJ:luks-checkexist-backport branch to 14b0a4f Dec 2, 2018

@dasJ dasJ changed the base branch from staging-18.09 to release-18.09 Dec 2, 2018

@dasJ

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

dasJ commented Dec 2, 2018

@worldofpeace Fixed (hopefully)

@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit 4c22ad7 into NixOS:release-18.09 Dec 2, 2018

9 checks passed

grahamcofborg-eval ^.^!
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-check-meta config.nix: checkMeta = true
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-nixos-manual nix-instantiate --arg nixpkgs { outPath=./.; revCount=999999; shortRev="ofborg"; } ./nixos/release.nix -A manual
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-nixos-options nix-instantiate --arg nixpkgs { outPath=./.; revCount=999999; shortRev="ofborg"; } ./nixos/release.nix -A options
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-nixpkgs-manual nix-instantiate --arg nixpkgs { outPath=./.; revCount=999999; shortRev="ofborg"; } ./pkgs/top-level/release.nix -A manual
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-nixpkgs-tarball nix-instantiate --arg nixpkgs { outPath=./.; revCount=999999; shortRev="ofborg"; } ./pkgs/top-level/release.nix -A tarball
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-nixpkgs-unstable-jobset nix-instantiate --arg nixpkgs { outPath=./.; revCount=999999; shortRev="ofborg"; } ./pkgs/top-level/release.nix -A unstable
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-package-list nix-env -qa --json --file .
Details
grahamcofborg-eval-package-list-no-aliases nix-env -qa --json --file . --arg config { allowAliases = false; }
Details
@Mic92

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Mic92 commented Dec 2, 2018

I reverted it again e8dd26f
because I read about: #50281 (comment)

@Mic92

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Mic92 commented Dec 2, 2018

Ok. this might have been not necessary according to, but I want to have some clarity first: #50281 (comment)

@dasJ dasJ deleted the dasJ:luks-checkexist-backport branch Jan 10, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.