[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#977358: release-notes: document how to make the rescue mode usable if no root password is set (buster)



Hi Justin, Andrei,

Thanks for the proposed text below. I struggle a bit with where to place
it. What do you suggest? It's not really an upgrading issue, is it?

Paul
@Andrei, I guess I should put it in the equivalent place in the buster
release notes too, right, after fixing suite names in the text?

On 10-04-2021 19:44, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> (Should there be some hint here at the fact that this has happened
>>> because we've switched to an implementation of sulogin without the
>>> slightly dodgy Debian-specific patches?)
>>
>> This is explained in the bug report for who cares to investigate, in my 
>> opinion it's not needed in the Release Notes.
> 
> This was mostly a note to myself in the hope that I'd find a way of
> leading into it that accentuated the positive - after all, this is
> just a side-effect of improvements elsewhere.  But when we're this
> late documenting it, it's a non-starter.
> 
> [...]
>>> This probably needs an external link, but I'm not optimistic we'll
>>> find one.  Maybe this is another case where we'll need a dedicated
>>> page on wiki.debian.org.
>>
>> As you probably know, it's as simple as:
>>
>>     systemctl edit rescue.service
>>
>>     and add
>>
>>     [Service]
>>     Environment=SYSTEMD_SULOGIN_FORCE=1
>>
> 
> Well, I know that now, because I've been looking it up, but I wasn't
> sure as I wrote that, and it's not as easy to pull the details
> together as it should be.  Still, at least it doesn't need the usual
> reminders to run daemon-reload or reboot.  But instead of telling
> people all about where to hunt for the information it might be quicker
> in this case just to put the answer in the text!
> 
>    <title>
>      The <literal>rescue</literal> boot option is unusable without a root password
>    </title>
>    <para>
>      Booting with the <literal>rescue</literal> option always requires
>      the root password. If one has not been set, this makes the rescue
>      mode effectively unusable. However it is still possible to boot
>      using the kernel parameter <literal>init=/sbin/sulogin --force</literal>
>    </para>
>    <para>
>      To configure systemd to do the equivalent of this whenever it boots
>      into rescue mode (also known as single mode: see <ulink
>      url="&url-man;/bullseye/systemd/systemd.1.html">systemd(1)</ulink>),
>      run <command>sudo systemctl edit rescue.service</command> and create
>      a file saying just:
>    </para>
>    <screen>
>      [Service]
>      Environment=SYSTEMD_SULOGIN_FORCE=1
>    </screen>
>    <para>
>      It might also (or instead) be useful to do this for the
>      <literal>emergency.service</literal> unit, which is started
>      <emphasis>automatically</emphasis> in the case of certain
>      errors (see <ulink
>      url="&url-man;/bullseye/systemd/systemd.special.7.html">systemd.special(7)</ulink>),
>      or if <literal>emergency</literal> is added to the kernel
>      command line (e.g. if the system can't be recovered by using
>      the rescue mode).
>    </para>
> 
> [...]
>>> (Why *did* setting these systems up with passwords in the first place
>>> go out of fashion?)
>>
>> For me it was a natural consequence of using sudo exclusively ;)
> 
> Ah, well, it's the old slogan - "Debian: giving you the power to shoot
> yourself in each toe individually."
> 
>>>>     For background and a discussion on the security implications see 

>>>>     bts:802211.
>>>
>>> I forget if we've got special markup for this or whether we just say
>>
>> All entities are in a dedicated file (I don't have a checkout handy to 

>> look it up).
> 
> I can't see the definition, but judging by old .po files we want
> 
>     <para>
>       For background and a discussion on the security implications see
>       <ulink url="&url-bts;/802211">#802211</ulink>.
>     </para>
> 

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: