Due to an influx of spam, we have had to temporarily disable account registrations. Please write an email to accountsupport@archlinux.org, with your desired username, if you want to get access. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Wait, you mean it will be possible or not? If not, then why tempt us with
this bot-test account? :P
You mean I've to publish the changes somewhere and report them as solution for a new issue on the main arch bugtracker or email some of the cryptsetup maintainers privately asking them to review and include the patch?
OT EDIT: yesterday I've sent an email to the aur-requests ML to have 5 packages undeleted and it still hasn't appeared in the archive section, so I was wondering if the message was delivered at all or the ML required extra credentials for write access.
It seems currently both the encrypt and sd-encrypt hooks support loading encryption keys (with the cryptkey boot parameter) at most as a plain key file on an unencrypted drive.
Since our key file is instead embedded on another password protected LUKS file image (<keys_device_root>/keysfs.{sfs,erofs}) because my mkarchiso LUKS changes don't cover a passwordless scenario (should they?), do you prefer I edit cryptkey parsing to let users specify their key is not in plain (es. by specifying luks as file system type) or make an entirely new boolean boot parameter (es. cryptkey_encrypted) to signal the key is not in plain text?
I've changed the merge request so that now just adds support for the airootfs image to be set with a modified version of the encrypt hook which also handles disks which are files inside physical disks instead of just physical disks.