On 06/15/2012 04:49 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com): >> On 06/15/2012 09:10 AM, Papp Tamas wrote: >>> hi All, >>> >>> I upgraded initscripts package: >>> >>> # apt-get install initscripts >>> Reading package lists... Done >>> Building dependency tree... Done >>> Recommended packages: >>> psmisc >>> The following packages will be upgraded: >>> initscripts >>> 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 46 not upgraded. >>> Need to get 27.8 kB of archives. >>> After this operation, 1024 B of additional disk space will be used. >>> Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main initscripts amd64 >>> 2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu11 [27.8 kB] >>> Fetched 27.8 kB in 0s (1166 kB/s) >>> (Reading database ... 11725 files and directories currently installed.) >>> Preparing to replace initscripts 2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu10 (using >>> .../initscripts_2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu11_amd64.deb) ... >>> Unpacking replacement initscripts ... >>> Processing triggers for ureadahead ... >>> Setting up initscripts (2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu11) ... >>> mount: block device /dev/shm is write-protected, mounting read-only >>> mount: cannot mount block device /dev/shm read-only >>> dpkg: error processing initscripts (--configure): >>> subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status >>> 1 >>> Errors were encountered while processing: >>> initscripts >>> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If I change line #48: >>> >>> if mount -t $FSTYPE "$SRC" "$DEST" $OPTS ; then >>> to >>> >>> if ! mount -t $FSTYPE "$SRC" "$DEST" $OPTS ; then >>> >>> It's OK. But it's of course is not usable solution. >>> What would be it? >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> tamas >> Hi, >> >> The logic in initscripts postinst is indeed a bit broken, Serge has been >> looking at fixing it, not sure how far he got. > That's actually a bit different. See http://pad.lv/974584 . I'm looking > at the case of being in a chroot (for debootstrap). Papp is running it > in a container, so the !chroot case. > > This may just be an apparmor denial?
I've just tried it with and uptodate host system and the same happened. And I guess you're right: [80260.508699] type=1400 audit(1340124706.145:125): apparmor="DENIED" operation="mount" info="failed type match" error=-13 parent=1175 profile="lxc-container-default" name="/run/shm/" pid=1221 comm="mount" srcname="/dev/shm/" flags="rw, bind" tamas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
