Project

General

Profile

Bug #15353

Ledger Nano S hardware wallet is not recognized due to wrong udev rules

Added by goupille over 1 year ago. Updated about 1 year ago.

Status:
Confirmed
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
-
Category:
Hardware support
Target version:
-
Start date:
02/28/2018
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
End-user documentation
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:
Electrum

Description

A user reported that Ledger Nano S hardware wallet wasn't working out of the box in Tails due to the lack of the python-btchip package and wrong udev rules (all of it is detailed in this script : https://gist.github.com/anonymous/3db8ff0be1e80165121a2598a83c9327#file-ledger).

The full workaround is described there :

https://www.reddit.com/r/ledgerwallet/comments/7kwi5i/howto_ledger_nano_s_with_electrum_wallet_279_on/

I don't kow if there is something to do on Tails side other than maybe document this somewhere...

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri over 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to goupille
  • QA Check set to Info Needed
  • Affected tool set to Electrum

Do you have contact info for that user? Without it I'm afraid there's not much I can do:

  • the link advices to add Jessie non-free APT sources; I've no idea why given python-btchip is in Stretch/main
  • in Tails 3.6 we'll ship a version of Electrum that runs in Python 3, so that user will need to install python3-btchip/testing (unless someone backports it for Stretch → s7r?)
  • the link does not explain the business it does with udev rules and why it's needed; with that little info I'm not going to blindly ask upstream/Debian to add these rules

#2 Updated by goupille over 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from goupille to intrigeri
  • QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

I just sent you the original whisperback report (tagged as usual)

#3 Updated by intrigeri over 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to s7r
  • Priority changed from Normal to Low
  • Type of work changed from Research to Debian

If we want to support this hardware in Tails 3.x, we need python3-btchip in stretch-backports. s7r, how popular is this hardware, how important is it to support it? https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=btchip-python suggests it is a corner case but then https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=btchip-python looks just the same.

I'll rely on you for prioritizing this request. And since the Additional Software Package feature will be vastly improved and user-friendly in Tails 3.9, IMO we should not include this package by default in Tails. But perhaps it would be nice to ensure users can install it themselves; but even if we don't do anything, this will be the case in Tails 4.0 so well, perhaps we can just postpone this? :)

#4 Updated by s7r over 1 year ago

python3-btchip is in testing, and it will be stable-backports. I am not sure how popular this is and I don't have enough statistic data to tell, but somehow I see a perfect pair in Tails in amnesic mode and hardware wallet so that I don't have to write down my seed phrase somewhere.

I am also fine with it not being shipped by default, but users having a really simple and fast way to install it in no-time. What are the cons (or drawbacks) if we just ship it? because I am not sure users that need it will know they need it and need to perform this extra step.

#5 Updated by intrigeri over 1 year ago

python3-btchip is in testing, and it will be stable-backports. I am not sure how popular this is and I don't have enough statistic data to tell, but somehow I see a perfect pair in Tails in amnesic mode and hardware wallet so that I don't have to write down my seed phrase somewhere.

Indeed. Let's keep in mind that one single user requested this though.

Note that one can use Tails with a persistent volume used solely for Additional Software Packages, and an amnesic Electrum config. Then one can add hardware wallet support packages (e.g. python3-btchip) to their Additional Software Packages and achieve the goal you're describing. So this goal can be achieved without including python3-btchip in the ISO. Or did I miss anything?

I am also fine with it not being shipped by default, but users having a really simple and fast way to install it in no-time.

That'll be the case in Tails 3.9 :)

What are the cons (or drawbacks) if we just ship it?

  • Bigger downloads for all users, including the 99.99% who don't need it.
  • Increased maintenance costs: more stuff that we have to maintain, that can break, that can become RC and be dropped from Debian testing, etc. I know that you volunteered to take care of this but as we've seen on #15390, #15452, #15189 and here, even with your help Electrum and its dependencies does add work on my shoulders.

because I am not sure users that need it will know they need it and need to perform this extra step.

I think we should add a note in wiki/src/doc/anonymous_internet/electrum.mdwn telling them that "to support hardware wallet $X, install package $Y".

#6 Updated by u about 1 year ago

  • Assignee deleted (s7r)
  • Type of work changed from Debian to End-user documentation

Looks like we should document:
wiki/src/doc/anonymous_internet/electrum.mdwn : "to support hardware wallet $X, install package $Y"."

The rest will be handled by ASP.

Also available in: Atom PDF