Bug#756109: systemd: Please copy 70-uaccess.rules and 71-seat.rules in the initramfs

[Martin Pitt]

Control: tag -1 pending

Bonsoir Laurent,

Laurent Bigonville [2016-11-30 21:13 +0100]:
> I quickly retested with that rules file and plymouth seems happy with it.

Cool, thanks!

  https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?id=4f6f3035b9

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

Bug#756109: systemd: Please copy 70-uaccess.rules and 71-seat.rules in the initramfs

[Laurent Bigonville]

Le 30/11/16 à 14:23, Martin Pitt a écrit :

Laurent Bigonville [2016-11-30 12:58 +0100]:

Is it a problem if loginctl is not present in the initramfs? Would the rule
be executed later in the boot again?

Yes, the rules are being executed on all devices later on, though
systemd-udev-trigger.service (usually dubbed "coldplugging").

IMHO putting logind into the initrd would just be plain wrong and
bloat. That is not the initrd's job.

That said, adding only 71-seat.rules to the initrd seems okay to me,
even though it smells like a workaround. Is that sufficient for
plymouth's needs?


I quickly retested with that rules file and plymouth seems happy with it.

Bug#756109: systemd: Please copy 70-uaccess.rules and 71-seat.rules in the initramfs

[Martin Pitt]

Laurent Bigonville [2016-11-30 12:58 +0100]:
> Is it a problem if loginctl is not present in the initramfs? Would the rule
> be executed later in the boot again?

Yes, the rules are being executed on all devices later on, though
systemd-udev-trigger.service (usually dubbed "coldplugging").

IMHO putting logind into the initrd would just be plain wrong and
bloat. That is not the initrd's job.

That said, adding only 71-seat.rules to the initrd seems okay to me,
even though it smells like a workaround. Is that sufficient for
plymouth's needs?

> Same question for systemd-sysctl. Couldn't that one be added in the
> initramfs?

Please not. It already gets run during boot, so it's again just
redundant and bloat for the initrd stage.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

Bug#756109: systemd: Please copy 70-uaccess.rules and 71-seat.rules in the initramfs

[Laurent Bigonville]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:03:46 +0100 Laurent Bigonville  
wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 05:30:23 +0200 m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > On Jul 26, Laurent Bigonville  wrote:
> >
> > > Do you think that it could be possible to copy 70-uaccess.rules and
> > > 71-seat.rules (and maybe 73-seat-late.rules) in the initramfs?
> > Adding 70-uaccess.rules is easy, but 71-seat.rules runs some programs
> > like loginctl which is not available in the initramfs.
> > Maybe we need a simpler rules file just for the initramfs?
> > Is this change still needed?
> > What do other distributions do about this?
>
> Still would be nice to have yes.
>
> I see two RUN in the 71-seat.rules and the loginctl one is used to lock
> the session in case a keylogger is inserted while the machine is booted,
> is it a problem if the command fails? The other one is udevadm, isn't
> this one already in the initramfs?
>
> Looking at fedora, I see that they are copying the following rules:
>
> inst_rules \
> 70-uaccess.rules \
> 71-seat.rules \
> 73-seat-late.rules \
> 90-vconsole.rules \
> 99-systemd.rules
>
> but indeed they are also installing the loginctl apparently (and
> systemd-sysctl for 99-systemd.rules).

What could be done here?

Is it a problem if loginctl is not present in the initramfs? Would the 
rule be executed later in the boot again?


Same question for systemd-sysctl. Couldn't that one be added in the 
initramfs?

Bug#756109: systemd: Please copy 70-uaccess.rules and 71-seat.rules in the initramfs

[Laurent Bigonville]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 05:30:23 +0200 m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Jul 26, Laurent Bigonville  wrote:
>
> > Do you think that it could be possible to copy 70-uaccess.rules and
> > 71-seat.rules (and maybe 73-seat-late.rules) in the initramfs?
> Adding 70-uaccess.rules is easy, but 71-seat.rules runs some programs
> like loginctl which is not available in the initramfs.
> Maybe we need a simpler rules file just for the initramfs?
> Is this change still needed?
> What do other distributions do about this?

Still would be nice to have yes.

I see two RUN in the 71-seat.rules and the loginctl one is used to lock 
the session in case a keylogger is inserted while the machine is booted, 
is it a problem if the command fails? The other one is udevadm, isn't 
this one already in the initramfs?


Looking at fedora, I see that they are copying the following rules:

inst_rules \
70-uaccess.rules \
71-seat.rules \
73-seat-late.rules \
90-vconsole.rules \
99-systemd.rules

but indeed they are also installing the loginctl apparently (and 
systemd-sysctl for 99-systemd.rules).


Cheers,

Laurent

Bug#756109: systemd: Please copy 70-uaccess.rules and 71-seat.rules in the initramfs

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jul 26, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org wrote:

 Do you think that it could be possible to copy 70-uaccess.rules and
 71-seat.rules (and maybe 73-seat-late.rules) in the initramfs?
Adding 70-uaccess.rules is easy, but 71-seat.rules runs some programs 
like loginctl which is not available in the initramfs.
Maybe we need a simpler rules file just for the initramfs?
Is this change still needed?
What do other distributions do about this?

-- 
ciao,
Marco


pgp2f2v7oMzF5.pgp
Description: PGP signature