Re: [CentOS] Restarting nfs-server using systemctl resulted in error

[Nurdiyana Ali]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 9:19 AM Gordon Messmer 
wrote:

> On 2/25/19 3:18 AM, Nurdiyana Ali wrote:
> > I am having strange issues with NFS server on CentOS 7.2.
>
>
> (Obligatory: "7.2" means you haven't applied patches in a very long
> time, and probably have a large number of security vulnerabilities on
> this system as well as bugs you're likely to hit and then ask about
> here.  Please update for your sake and ours)
>
>
> > [root@hostname ~]# systemctl restart nfs-server
> >
> > ** (pkttyagent:20603): WARNING **: Unable to register authentication
> agent:
> > Timeout was reached
>
>
> I think that's the sort of thing you'd see if you updated the dbus
> packages.  You'd need to restart the dbus service, which will break some
> things.  You're better off rebooting this time, if a dbus update is the
> cause.
>
> We rebooted the server and we can now start nfs-server service. Thank you
> for your assistance.
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C 7 anacron issue

[Ulf Volmer]

On 08.03.19 01:29, mark wrote:

> +:root:cron crond :0 tty1 tty2 tty3 tty4 tty5 tty6

I will suggest to remove the tty stuff.
Try

+:root:cron crond

Best regards
Ulf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C 7 anacron issue

[mark]

mark wrote:

Has anyone else seen a problem recently (like, the last few weeks) with
anacron? We've got a couple of recently-built systems and we're seeing Mar
4 17:20:01  crond[25767]: (root) PAM ERROR (Failure setting
user credentials) Mar  4 17:20:01  crond[25767]: (root) FAILED to
authorize user with PAM (Failure setting user credentials)


More data: I started debugging from the PAM end, and now I'm more
confused. I set debug in /etc/pam.d/cron, and when it runs, I see it hit
every line in /etc/security/access.conf, and authentication fails.

+:unbound:cron crond
was already in the file, and at the top, after looking at the rpm, I added
+:root:cron crond :0 tty1 tty2 tty3 tty4 tty5 tty6

and it just strolls past in its listwalk, and says nope. I did try
installing pamtester, and that's completely useless - even with -v, it
just tells me it failed.

Any clues, folks?

 mark


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS-virt] Xen-kernel: Update to 4.14 or 4.19?

[Steven Haigh]

On Friday, 8 March 2019 4:42:13 AM AEDT George Dunlap wrote:
> I'd suggest 4.19. 

+1

-- 
Steven Haigh

 net...@crc.id.au   https://www.crc.id.au
 +61 (3) 9001 6090  0412 935 897

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

[CentOS] CentOS 8 Artwork needed

[Rich Bowen]

To all the artists and designers here, we need your help.

With RHEL 8 beta released, we need to start producing artwork for CentOS
8. It's time for the CentOS Artwork SIG, and anyone else that's
interested in contributing to this effort, to start working on
everything that will be needed for the new release.

What we know we need is anaconda artwork, and new desktop backgrounds to
replace the current '7' themed stuff.

As we dig, we may find more things that need to be updated to the new 8
theme.

Additionally, we will need to update some of the assets listed here:
https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Identity

... and produce new assets for 8 to be listed here:
https://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Brand/Logo

And, finally, we need someone to step up to lead this effort.

While we don't yet know for certain when RHEL 8 will officially release,
it's safe to assume that it's soon, and we need your help.

-- 
Rich Bowen - rbo...@redhat.com
@CentOSProject // @rbowen
859 351 9166
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS-virt] Xen-kernel: Update to 4.14 or 4.19?

[Kevin Stange]

On 3/7/19 12:55 PM, Karl Johnson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:42 PM Sarah Newman  > wrote:
> 
> On 3/7/19 10:30 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM George Dunlap  > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> We've been on 4.9 for some time now, and while it's still
> supported, I
> >> think it's time to start thinking about upgrading, and I'd like input
> >> from the community about which version to move up to.
> >>
> >> 4.19 has been out for almost 5 months now.  It will include PVH domU
> >> support, and PVH dom0 support in what _is believed_ to be the final
> >> form; so when the Virt SIG moves to a version of Xen that
> supports PVH
> >> dom0, the kernel will already be in place with no need to upgrade.
> >>
> >> The other option would be to move to 4.14: Probably more stable (as
> >> it's been out for over a year now), but doesn't have either PVH domU
> >> or PVH dom0 support.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest 4.19. Any other opinions?
> >>
> >>  -George
> >
> > You may also want to consider each version's EOL:
> >
> > 4.9   Jan, 2023
> > 4.14   Jan, 2020
> > 4.19   Dec, 2020
> 
> Regardless of EOL date, I think it's worth trying to upgrade when
> Xen has stable PVH dom0 support.
> 
> I am pretty sure historically that there have been difficulties
> backporting some of the side channel mitigations as they can be
> quite invasive. That
> may be another reason to upgrade sooner rather than later.
> 
> --Sarah
> 
> 
> +1 for 4.19. However, this version requires a recent GCC version so it
> wont build at least for el6 on the CBS. We would have to build them with
> recent GCC from devtoolset like I do in my pull request (gcc 7.3.1).
> 
> Karl

I am +1 for 4.19 as well and I agree with Sarah's reasoning that we'll
want stable PVH dom0 support as soon as it's reasonable.  However, I had
serious stability issues with 3.18 in the past and I would want keep a
major kernel bump in the testing repo for 3-6 months before moving it to
release.  I will do as much testing as I can during that time to
establish stability on my side.

It might make sense that we just bump to 4.19 for EL7 to avoid the
complications related to devtoolset on EL6. 4.9 lasts the entire
remaining lifetime of EL6, but will come up slightly short of EL7's.
However that means bumping two divergent kernels periodically for each
set of repos.

Based on recent history (4.4, 4.9) we can probably expect both 4.14 and
4.19 to become 6 year kernels extending to Jan 2024 and Dec 2024
respectively, though GKH seems to like to wait until close to the
original EOL to announce these decisions.  We can likely also expect a
kernel like 5.3 to end up becoming longterm around end of 2019.

-- 
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast | Managed Infrastructure, Datacenter and Cloud Services
800 S Wells, Suite 190 | Chicago, IL 60607
312.602.2689 X203 | Fax: 312.602.2688
ke...@steadfast.net | www.steadfast.net
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

Re: [CentOS-virt] Xen-kernel: Update to 4.14 or 4.19?

[Karl Johnson]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:42 PM Sarah Newman  wrote:

> On 3/7/19 10:30 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM George Dunlap  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> We've been on 4.9 for some time now, and while it's still supported, I
> >> think it's time to start thinking about upgrading, and I'd like input
> >> from the community about which version to move up to.
> >>
> >> 4.19 has been out for almost 5 months now.  It will include PVH domU
> >> support, and PVH dom0 support in what _is believed_ to be the final
> >> form; so when the Virt SIG moves to a version of Xen that supports PVH
> >> dom0, the kernel will already be in place with no need to upgrade.
> >>
> >> The other option would be to move to 4.14: Probably more stable (as
> >> it's been out for over a year now), but doesn't have either PVH domU
> >> or PVH dom0 support.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest 4.19. Any other opinions?
> >>
> >>  -George
> >
> > You may also want to consider each version's EOL:
> >
> > 4.9   Jan, 2023
> > 4.14   Jan, 2020
> > 4.19   Dec, 2020
>
> Regardless of EOL date, I think it's worth trying to upgrade when Xen has
> stable PVH dom0 support.
>
> I am pretty sure historically that there have been difficulties
> backporting some of the side channel mitigations as they can be quite
> invasive. That
> may be another reason to upgrade sooner rather than later.
>
> --Sarah
>
>
+1 for 4.19. However, this version requires a recent GCC version so it wont
build at least for el6 on the CBS. We would have to build them with recent
GCC from devtoolset like I do in my pull request (gcc 7.3.1).

Karl
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

Re: [CentOS-virt] Xen-kernel: Update to 4.14 or 4.19?

[Sarah Newman]

On 3/7/19 10:30 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM George Dunlap  wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> We've been on 4.9 for some time now, and while it's still supported, I
>> think it's time to start thinking about upgrading, and I'd like input
>> from the community about which version to move up to.
>>
>> 4.19 has been out for almost 5 months now.  It will include PVH domU
>> support, and PVH dom0 support in what _is believed_ to be the final
>> form; so when the Virt SIG moves to a version of Xen that supports PVH
>> dom0, the kernel will already be in place with no need to upgrade.
>>
>> The other option would be to move to 4.14: Probably more stable (as
>> it's been out for over a year now), but doesn't have either PVH domU
>> or PVH dom0 support.
>>
>> I'd suggest 4.19. Any other opinions?
>>
>>  -George
> 
> You may also want to consider each version's EOL:
> 
> 4.9   Jan, 2023
> 4.14   Jan, 2020
> 4.19   Dec, 2020

Regardless of EOL date, I think it's worth trying to upgrade when Xen has 
stable PVH dom0 support.

I am pretty sure historically that there have been difficulties backporting 
some of the side channel mitigations as they can be quite invasive. That
may be another reason to upgrade sooner rather than later.

--Sarah
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

Re: [CentOS-virt] Xen-kernel: Update to 4.14 or 4.19?

[Akemi Yagi]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM George Dunlap  wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> We've been on 4.9 for some time now, and while it's still supported, I
> think it's time to start thinking about upgrading, and I'd like input
> from the community about which version to move up to.
>
> 4.19 has been out for almost 5 months now.  It will include PVH domU
> support, and PVH dom0 support in what _is believed_ to be the final
> form; so when the Virt SIG moves to a version of Xen that supports PVH
> dom0, the kernel will already be in place with no need to upgrade.
>
> The other option would be to move to 4.14: Probably more stable (as
> it's been out for over a year now), but doesn't have either PVH domU
> or PVH dom0 support.
>
> I'd suggest 4.19. Any other opinions?
>
>  -George

You may also want to consider each version's EOL:

4.9   Jan, 2023
4.14   Jan, 2020
4.19   Dec, 2020

Akemi
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

[CentOS-virt] Xen-kernel: Update to 4.14 or 4.19?

[George Dunlap]

Hey all,

We've been on 4.9 for some time now, and while it's still supported, I
think it's time to start thinking about upgrading, and I'd like input
from the community about which version to move up to.

4.19 has been out for almost 5 months now.  It will include PVH domU
support, and PVH dom0 support in what _is believed_ to be the final
form; so when the Virt SIG moves to a version of Xen that supports PVH
dom0, the kernel will already be in place with no need to upgrade.

The other option would be to move to 4.14: Probably more stable (as
it's been out for over a year now), but doesn't have either PVH domU
or PVH dom0 support.

I'd suggest 4.19. Any other opinions?

 -George
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

Re: [CentOS] CentOs 7 i386 & PAE Kernel

[Johnny Hughes]

Interestingly, in the kernels > 4.19.x that we are building, PAE is
turned off for x86_32.

The reason is, there are many errors (according to some people I have
talked to in the Fedora Project).

Therefore, the 4.14 series may be the last kernel we have that has it
turned on.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOs 7 i386 & PAE Kernel

[Johnny Hughes]

On 3/6/19 9:49 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:23 AM Mike McTernan (wavemobile)
>  wrote:
>>
>> On 3/6/19 1:28 PM,  Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 3/6/19 6:26 AM, Mike McTernan (wavemobile) wrote:
 On 3/5/19 5:48 PM,  Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
 Last question, if I may - Is there any specific reason why an i686 PAE
 kernel built from the main RHEL sources isn't in the AltArch i386 os- repo?

 Notably CentOS 6 provided both non-PAE and PAE 32-bit kernels, and
 it's that step from CentOS 6 32-bit PAE onto CentOS 7 32-bit which
 made me stumble, but okay now.
>>>
>>> The only reason is .. it is not included in the mainline RHEL 7 kernel 
>>> source
>>> code.
>>
>> Ah - I guess since mainline RHEL 7 is only 64-bit on x86 now, it doesn't 
>> have to worry about PAE vs non-PAE kernels.
>>
>> ...
>>> I have no objections trying to make PAE work with that kernel .. Patches
>>> accepted :D
>>>
>>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6828
>>
>> So with what I know now (thank you!) I recon the mainline 4.14 is probably a 
>> better tested path for a 32-bit x86 PAE kernel, rather than starting at RHEL 
>> 7.  And since you are already building that kernel it's good news all round 
>> :-)
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Mike
> 
> Going for the 4.14 kernel is absolutely a better choice. The i686 plus
> kernel is just lucky to be existing. It would not have been possible
> to maintain it without great support from people like Pablo and @kabe.
> We initially got the 32-bit version from Springdale (formerly Puias).
> Then they stopped building at some point. Building it becomes harder
> and harder with each release, it seems. So, there is no guarantee that
> there is another update to the i686 plus kernel.
> 
> Akemi

Just a follow on to this conversation .. we have, on a couple of
occasions, almost shifted i386 to an upstream LTS kernel due to the
inability to get the RHEL 7 source to build for i386.

Kabe and Pablo have thus far been able to help Akemi and I get it to
build, but in the future as the RHEL 7 kernel keeps getting harder to
maintain for i386 (they don't check all their backports work on i386 ..
only the arches they maintain), we may rebase the kernel on i386 to
whichever one we are using on armhfp generic at the time.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7.6 kickstart error

[isdtor]

Steve Clark writes:
> On 03/06/2019 07:12 AM, isdtor wrote:
> > I am testing a CentOS 7.6 kickstart installation. After kickstart was 
> > initiated,
> > the installation stops at some point where a sort of table is printed under
> > "Installation", and the item that fails is 4 - Software selection, Error
> > checking software selection.
> >
> > I have checked /tmp/packaging.log and /tmp/anaconda.log, but cannot find any
> > errors here that would prevent installation.
> >
> > Poor error messages, no usable lead for debug.
> >
> Hi,
> 
> I have run into this - in my experience it means there is some dependency 
> missing.
> And you are correct trying to find the error is a PITA.
 
I figured out a different way, less involved than the one proposed by Gregory.

The package selection in the kickstart file essentially consists of a custom 
group to keep it short. So I took a 7.5 machine and then ran a group update off 
the 7.6 custom repo. The packages that make the update fail are new in 7.6, and 
the 7.6 kickstart started working once I removed them from the repo. They were 
the grub2-ppc* packages.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos