Should dracut module be opt-in?

[ahesford]

The check function in the dracut module installation script 90zfs/module-setup.sh returns 0 as long as ZFS userland utilities are found in the path. This tells dracut to automatically include the module. However, many users may have ZFS installed without having a ZFS root filesystem, and the dracut module shouldn't necessarily be included in the initramfs in these circumstances.

Returning 255 tells dracut never to include a module by default, instead requiring that it be added to a dracut configuration. Should the ZFS dracut module be opt-in only?

Advantage:

• Nobody gets bitten by https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/37667 unexpectedly

Disadvantage:

• Anybody with a ZFS root that has so far relied on the automatic inclusion mechanism will likely be caught off-guard should this change take effect

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13589 is my proposal to mitigate the potential harm caused by automatic inclusion of the ZFS dracut module whenever the userland utilities are installed; however, thought should be given to disallowing automatic dracut module installation.

[behlendorf]

Should the ZFS dracut module be opt-in only?

That was always the intent and why there was a separate dracut rpm sub-package. The notion was it would only be installed if dracut module was intended to be used, but that of course assumes the repo provided packaging.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as "stale" because it has not had any activity for a while. It will be closed in 90 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.