Re: [PATCH] keys: allow request-key path to be configured via Kconfig

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 11:30:06AM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> On Mon Jun 8, 2026 at 5:59 AM BST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 07:50:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 02:49:27PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> >> > From: Gary Guo <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > 
> >> > Some Linux distributions (e.g. NixOS) does not have /sbin present, and they
> >> > currently carry patches to replace /sbin/request-key to some other path.
> >> 
> >> Sorry but no configuration for introducing API divergence.
> 
> What is the API divergence here? Distros can already patch the kernel or place a
> different binary there, so I don't see what's being gained on not allowing to
> change this with Kconfig.

There's lot of out-of-tree drivers too that distributions. I'm not
finding anything usefel in this argument.

> 
> Also to note, the actual binary being called can already be swapped out by
> CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER_PATH, although for the NixOS this is not the proper
> mechanism as it affects coredump too which isn't a fixed path binary in /sbin.

I have not seen actual uses of CONFIG_STATIC_USERMODEHELPER_PATH. You
could probably use it with busybox?

> 
> This is really just for distros to be able to configure where /sbin is located.
> Given usr merge and (some distros) bin/sbin merge, the canonical path of
> request-key binary is very likely not /sbin/request-key anymore, so it seems to
> make sense to me to allow this to be changed rather than always go through
> compatibility symlinks.

I doubt there's a huge demand other than NixOS. Just basing this on that
no other noise have been made so far.

> 
> How about a something like CONFIG_DEFAULT_USERMODEHELPER_PATH which defaults to
> /sbin, and then request-key uses that concatenated with "/request-key"?
> 
> >
> > Not sure right now but one option might kernel command-line. Then it is
> > known at run-time, can be signed etc. Compiled value has no identity in
> > the same way.
> >
> > And I don't care if NixOS has such a problem as I've not have any stake
> > making of those decisions.
> >
> > You really should explain why it makes sense to have such feature i.e.,
> > why is it useful. And if NixOS considered, why is it useful for NixOS.
> >
> > This all should be in  the commit message.
> 
> Sure, if you need some more detailed explaination on how NixOS works.
> 
> NixOS intentionally not use FHS directory paths, so packages refers to their
> dependencies via cryptographical hashes in rather than fixed paths for build-time
> known dependencies, and themselves also live in a path with hashes in them (so
> two different versions of the same package are in different paths). E.g.
> /nix/store/wjzk0s5dwk0i7swh3rmh1pl10k6v1w6d-keyutils-1.6.3/bin/request-key
> 
> The full system is also built as a package with all installed binaries in
> $pkg/sw/bin, configuration in $pkg/etc, etc.. The current system is symlinked to
> /run/current-system, and when a new system is activated this symlink is swapped
> out and therefore all paths are updated atomically. For request-key, this is
> symlinked to
> /run/current-system/sw/bin/request-key
> 
> NixOS carries a patch which uses this path instead of /sbin (which does not
> exist on NixOS at all).
> 
> The motivation is really "be able to switch /sbin". I feel that all the above are
> secondary motivations and is too verbose to include in the commit message.
> 
> I am not a maintainer for NixOS's kernel; I use NixOS and just want to develop
> kernel and test out kernel on my machines without having to patch them.

I don't frankly care how NixOS works per se in details. Scope this into
message to problem that it addresses.

> 
> Best,
> Gary

BR, Jarkko