Comment 4 for bug 595648

>I'm not disputing that, but this is not nearly so easy to fix as you
>suppose, and we're certainly not going to revert the plymouth support which
>fixed many other, much higher-impact bugs.

This is the point I don't understand. Why is a "killall plymouth*" bad?
This would allow for an easy solution, kill plymouth after remote log in and use the askpass "fallback" as it is currently implemented. Leave everything as it is if I am sitting in front of the machine using plymouth to unlock.
I do not want to disable plymouth completely, just for the remote sessions.

An more complicated solution would be to introduce a "--accept-pass SECRET" option to plymouth to inject the password from a second console (the remote login) into the currently waiting plymouth(d?) process which asks for the password.
Alternatively plymouth could check for the same file askpass is checking, but I would prefer the first solution.

But this would definitely mean some more lines of code, I agree.