#3258: Mounting /dev/shm can break some hosts
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  matthew@…                     |       Owner:  lfs-book@…            
       
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new                   
       
 Priority:  normal                        |   Milestone:  7.3                   
       
Component:  Book                          |     Version:  SVN                   
       
 Severity:  normal                        |    Keywords:                        
       
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Old description:

> As reported at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-
> dev/2012-December/067476.html the instructions to work around the fact
> that some hosts have symlinked /dev/shm to /run/shm can in fact break
> those hosts.  Once the /dev/shm symlink is removed from the host, it's
> never recreated!
>
> The fix from Pierre, in that thread, looks good:
>
> {{{
> if [ -h $LFS/dev/shm ]; then
>    mkdir -p $/LFS/run/shm
>    mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/run/shm
> fi
> }}}
>
> So, we mount the shm FS into the target of the symlink, rather than
> removing the symlink.
>
> We'll need to add an errata item for this as well.

New description:

 As reported at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-
 dev/2012-December/067476.html the instructions to work around the fact
 that some hosts have symlinked /dev/shm to /run/shm can in fact break
 those hosts.  Once the /dev/shm symlink is removed from the host, it's
 never recreated!

 The fix from Pierre, in that thread, looks good:

 {{{
 if [ -h $LFS/dev/shm ]; then
    mkdir -p $LFS/run/shm
    mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/run/shm
 fi
 }}}

 So, we mount the shm FS into the target of the symlink, rather than
 removing the symlink.

 We'll need to add an errata item for this as well.

--

Comment(by bdubbs@…):

 I've been thinking about this some more and the proposed solution appears
 to be correct for the case when the /dev/shm -> /run/shm symlink is
 present.

 I'm not sure about the case when the symlink is not present, wouldn't we
 want to mount a new tmpfs directly on $LFS/dev/shm like we do now?  Also,
 we probably don't want to make assumptions for where the symlink is
 pointing.

 {{{
 if [ -h $LFS/dev/shm ]; then
    link=$(readlink $LFS/dev/shm)
    mkdir -p $LFS/$link
    mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/$link
    unset link
 else
    mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/shm
 fi
 }}}

 I'll make the change if we agree that this is the right way to go.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/3258#comment:2>
LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/>
Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules.
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to