search

NixOS / nixpkgs

Nix Packages collection & NixOS
MIT License
16.68k stars 13.12k forks source link

unl0kr for ZFS encryption #319449

Open crabdancing opened 1 month ago

crabdancing commented 1 month ago

nixpkgs has a nifty feature that allows unl0kr, the raw framebuffer on screen keyboard, to work as a mechanism for unlocking LUKs. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to work for ZFS-encrypted systems. Adding this feature would be a great addition and and bring ZFS closer to having first-class support on NixOS.

@stuebinm

Edit: abiding the subsequent complaint, I'm logging here that stuebinm was pinged because they were on relevant lines in unl0kr.nix.

stuebinm commented 1 month ago

please do not randomly ping people without at least some indication of why you think they have something to do with your issue, especially if they're not the maintainer of any of the packages / modules your issue touches (instead, look at the maintainers listed in the package or module definitions, or in the .github/CODEOWNERS file, to find out who actually maintains a file in nixpkgs).

in this case, i do not maintain nor am I involved in ZFS, LUKs, or unl0kr at all. If I show up as a committer on any of their files, it's because they were incidentally touched by unrelated work I did.

crabdancing commented 1 month ago

Oh, whoops. Sorry about that :)

You were, in fact, on the git blame for relevant code lines in unl0kr.nix, so it wasn't random. Actually, the template itself seems to suggest the policy of using git blame for this purpose!

Please @ people who are in the `meta.maintainers` list of the offending package or module.
If in doubt, check `git blame` for whoever last touched something.

This is in the context of bug reports, but there isn't a template for feature requests, so I just did my best to guess what the right thing to do would be here.

I didn't know about CODEOWNERS though. Perhaps the comment should be edited to include that in the same template.

I was entirely riding on the maintainers expression -- and since this isn't a package, but is instead a module for configuring said package, I'm not really sure who else to contact in situations like that. So CODEOWNERS is useful info! It looks like I would either contact raitobezarius for ZFS/boot stuff, or someone else?

crabdancing commented 1 month ago

Not seeing a better option, I guess I'll ping @raitobezarius for ZFS relatedness (on the basis of CODEOWNERS) Hopefully this turns out better :)

Edit: Oh, interesting! It looks like there is a meta.maintainers in unl0kr.nix. That didn't turn up when probing it in nix repl, so I didn't notice at first. I guess I'll also ping @tomfitzhenry on that basis.