[systemd-devel] getting ready for systemd 230

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

Hi,

we're getting close. Please give the latest git a spin, look for typos
and omissions in NEWS, etc. Speak up if you have anything outstanding
that should be merged before the release. There's a bunch of pull requests
on github that add new functionality, let's delay those until after the
release.

Zbyszek
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] Hear opinions about changing watchdog timeout value during service running

[연]

Hello,

I am planning to work on supporting api which changes "WATCHDOG_USEC"
value during service running.

With this api, running service can change its own watchdog timeout value.

I want to hear your opinions about this suggested function.

Thanks


Minkyung Kim

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [networkd] dbus interface?

[Yuri D'Elia]

On Wed, May 18 2016, Christian Hesse wrote:
> Yuri D'Elia  on Mon, 2016/05/16 21:30:
>> I'd like to monitor interface state changes as emitted by networkd.
>
> You may want to take a look at netlink-notify [0]. It does not use networkd
> at all but kernel's netlink interface. It's not perfect but works pretty well
> for me. And there's no polling, so no waste of resources.

Very nice and simple too!
Missed this in my search (damn, finding projects in github is _hard_).

> BTW, probably the simplest and most straight forward monitoring on console
> (so no notification popups...) is 'ip monitor'.

Of course, I was hoping to get more detailed events out of networkd. I
wrote something very similar for connman, where I can get events for AP
reconfiguration and DHCP updates (including resolver changes) in a
single spot.

For a wlan link, I really want to know which ESSID wpa_supplicant
attached me to.

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] Automount some dirs at user ligin

[Vasiliy Tolstov]

If this possible with systemd,why not use it? If not - I check pam_mount
18 Май 2016 г. 22:17 пользователь "killermoehre" 
написал:

Am 18.05.2016 um 21:14 schrieb Vasiliy Tolstov:
> I need to mount tmpfs on .cache for each user after login.
> How can I do that with systemd?
> S
> For example I want for user1 mount tmpfs on dir .cache, for user2 mount
> .cache to tmpfs also and so on.
> After logout last session for this user, I need to unmount it...
IMHO you should use pam_mount [1] for this instead.

[1] http://pam-mount.sourceforge.net/
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] Automount some dirs at user ligin

[killermoehre]

Am 18.05.2016 um 21:14 schrieb Vasiliy Tolstov:
> I need to mount tmpfs on .cache for each user after login.
> How can I do that with systemd?
> S
> For example I want for user1 mount tmpfs on dir .cache, for user2 mount
> .cache to tmpfs also and so on.
> After logout last session for this user, I need to unmount it...
IMHO you should use pam_mount [1] for this instead.

[1] http://pam-mount.sourceforge.net/
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] Automount some dirs at user ligin

[Vasiliy Tolstov]

I need to mount tmpfs on .cache for each user after login.
How can I do that with systemd?
S
For example I want for user1 mount tmpfs on dir .cache, for user2 mount
.cache to tmpfs also and so on.
After logout last session for this user, I need to unmount it...
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Pradeepa Kumar]

sorry for not being clear earlier.
 may be i am not explaining properly.

In XYZ.service:
ExecStop: myscript1

$cat myscript1
echo "inside myscript1"


and

The sequence in jounrnalctl logs are:

 May 18 01:18:06 machine1 systemd[1]: Stopping "XYZ service"...
...
 May 18 01:18:46 machine1  myscript1[3941]: inside myscript1

As you can see, the beginning of execution of myscript1 took 40 sec.




On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Reindl Harald 
wrote:

>
>
> Am 18.05.2016 um 16:51 schrieb Pradeepa Kumar:
>
>> My understanding is ExecStop will be called before sending SIGTERM to
>> service.
>> if it is true then systemd took 42 sec to initiate stop sequence
>> (calling script in ExecStop) and send SIGTERM to service.
>> please correct me if I am wrong
>>
>
> you don't get it
> your "ExecStop" took 42 sec
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Reindl Harald > > wrote:
>>
>> Am 18.05.2016 um 16:23 schrieb Pradeepa Kumar:
>>
>> I have a script in ExecStop in service file.
>> In journalctl, The time difference between "Stopping XYZ service
>> " and
>> logs from my script in ExecStop is 42 sec.
>> Does that mean systemd itself took long time to start stopping of
>> service?
>>
>>
>> no, it means systemd is only the messenger and your script took 42
>> seconds to finish
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> 
>> >>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18.05.16 16:00, Pradeepa Kumar (cdprade...@gmail.com
>> 
>> >)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi experts,
>> > I am using systemd v219.
>> > I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
>> > I see that some times stopping of service is taking long
>> time (42 sec).
>> > i checked this in journal logs also.
>> >  is this is known issue ?
>> > how do i debug this ?
>> >  and any solutions ?
>>
>> Well, that depends on the specific service. If a specific
>> service
>> takes 42s to shut down, then try figuring out what it does.
>> If there's
>> nothing in the journal, then maybe the service maintains its
>> own logs?
>> If it does not, see if you can turn on debug logging for it.
>>
>> Either way, that's really a question to ask the maintainers
>> of that
>> service, not to systemd upstream.
>>
>
>
> ___
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
>
>
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.05.2016 um 16:51 schrieb Pradeepa Kumar:

My understanding is ExecStop will be called before sending SIGTERM to
service.
if it is true then systemd took 42 sec to initiate stop sequence
(calling script in ExecStop) and send SIGTERM to service.
please correct me if I am wrong


you don't get it
your "ExecStop" took 42 sec


On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote:

Am 18.05.2016 um 16:23 schrieb Pradeepa Kumar:

I have a script in ExecStop in service file.
In journalctl, The time difference between "Stopping XYZ service
" and
logs from my script in ExecStop is 42 sec.
Does that mean systemd itself took long time to start stopping of
service?


no, it means systemd is only the messenger and your script took 42
seconds to finish

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering

>>
wrote:

On Wed, 18.05.16 16:00, Pradeepa Kumar (cdprade...@gmail.com

>)
wrote:

> Hi experts,
> I am using systemd v219.
> I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
> I see that some times stopping of service is taking long
time (42 sec).
> i checked this in journal logs also.
>  is this is known issue ?
> how do i debug this ?
>  and any solutions ?

Well, that depends on the specific service. If a specific
service
takes 42s to shut down, then try figuring out what it does.
If there's
nothing in the journal, then maybe the service maintains its
own logs?
If it does not, see if you can turn on debug logging for it.

Either way, that's really a question to ask the maintainers
of that
service, not to systemd upstream.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Pradeepa Kumar]

My understanding is ExecStop will be called before sending SIGTERM to
service.
if it is true then systemd took 42 sec to initiate stop sequence (calling
script in ExecStop) and send SIGTERM to service.
please correct me if I am wrong

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Reindl Harald 
wrote:

>
>
> Am 18.05.2016 um 16:23 schrieb Pradeepa Kumar:
>
>> I have a script in ExecStop in service file.
>> In journalctl, The time difference between "Stopping XYZ service " and
>> logs from my script in ExecStop is 42 sec.
>> Does that mean systemd itself took long time to start stopping of
>> service?
>>
>
> no, it means systemd is only the messenger and your script took 42 seconds
> to finish
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18.05.16 16:00, Pradeepa Kumar (cdprade...@gmail.com
>> ) wrote:
>>
>> > Hi experts,
>> > I am using systemd v219.
>> > I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
>> > I see that some times stopping of service is taking long time (42
>> sec).
>> > i checked this in journal logs also.
>> >  is this is known issue ?
>> > how do i debug this ?
>> >  and any solutions ?
>>
>> Well, that depends on the specific service. If a specific service
>> takes 42s to shut down, then try figuring out what it does. If there's
>> nothing in the journal, then maybe the service maintains its own logs?
>> If it does not, see if you can turn on debug logging for it.
>>
>> Either way, that's really a question to ask the maintainers of that
>> service, not to systemd upstream.
>>
>
>
> ___
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
>
>
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.05.2016 um 16:23 schrieb Pradeepa Kumar:

I have a script in ExecStop in service file.
In journalctl, The time difference between "Stopping XYZ service " and
logs from my script in ExecStop is 42 sec.
Does that mean systemd itself took long time to start stopping of
service?


no, it means systemd is only the messenger and your script took 42 
seconds to finish



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:

On Wed, 18.05.16 16:00, Pradeepa Kumar (cdprade...@gmail.com
) wrote:

> Hi experts,
> I am using systemd v219.
> I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
> I see that some times stopping of service is taking long time (42 sec).
> i checked this in journal logs also.
>  is this is known issue ?
> how do i debug this ?
>  and any solutions ?

Well, that depends on the specific service. If a specific service
takes 42s to shut down, then try figuring out what it does. If there's
nothing in the journal, then maybe the service maintains its own logs?
If it does not, see if you can turn on debug logging for it.

Either way, that's really a question to ask the maintainers of that
service, not to systemd upstream.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Pradeepa Kumar]

Thanks.
I have a script in ExecStop in service file.
In journalctl, The time difference between "Stopping XYZ service " and logs
from my script in ExecStop is 42 sec.
Does that mean systemd itself took long time to start stopping of service .
?

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering 
wrote:

> On Wed, 18.05.16 16:00, Pradeepa Kumar (cdprade...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Hi experts,
> > I am using systemd v219.
> > I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
> > I see that some times stopping of service is taking long time (42 sec).
> > i checked this in journal logs also.
> >  is this is known issue ?
> > how do i debug this ?
> >  and any solutions ?
>
> Well, that depends on the specific service. If a specific service
> takes 42s to shut down, then try figuring out what it does. If there's
> nothing in the journal, then maybe the service maintains its own logs?
> If it does not, see if you can turn on debug logging for it.
>
> Either way, that's really a question to ask the maintainers of that
> service, not to systemd upstream.
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
>
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Lennart Poettering]

On Wed, 18.05.16 16:00, Pradeepa Kumar (cdprade...@gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi experts,
> I am using systemd v219.
> I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
> I see that some times stopping of service is taking long time (42 sec).
> i checked this in journal logs also.
>  is this is known issue ?
> how do i debug this ?
>  and any solutions ?

Well, that depends on the specific service. If a specific service
takes 42s to shut down, then try figuring out what it does. If there's
nothing in the journal, then maybe the service maintains its own logs?
If it does not, see if you can turn on debug logging for it.

Either way, that's really a question to ask the maintainers of that
service, not to systemd upstream.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [networkd] dbus interface?

[Christian Hesse]

Yuri D'Elia  on Mon, 2016/05/16 21:30:
> I'd like to monitor interface state changes as emitted by networkd.

You may want to take a look at netlink-notify [0]. It does not use networkd
at all but kernel's netlink interface. It's not perfect but works pretty well
for me. And there's no polling, so no waste of resources.

BTW, probably the simplest and most straight forward monitoring on console
(so no notification popups...) is 'ip monitor'.

[0] https://github.com/eworm-de/netlink-notify
-- 
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Best regards my address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/*Chriscc -ox -xc - && ./x*/b/42*2-3)*42);}


pgphSp2_ZjLhA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] service stop taking too long

[Pradeepa Kumar]

Hi experts,
I am using systemd v219.
I need help with a systemd issue that I am seeing.
I see that some times stopping of service is taking long time (42 sec).
i checked this in journal logs also.
 is this is known issue ?
how do i debug this ?
 and any solutions ?

Thanks for help.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why are the systemd binaries so huge and can we do something about that?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 17.05.16 18:11, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:

> I have to add, I don't quite understand, why the convenience libs are
> split up like this:

explained some in the other mail. To add to this:
> 
> 
> > libbasic.la
> > libshared.la
> > libfirewall.la

this one is separate as it pulls in the netfilter libs and we
don'twant that dep on all binaries.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] why are the systemd binaries so huge and can we do something about that?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 17.05.16 18:09, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:

> 2016-05-17 10:36 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering :
> > On Mon, 16.05.16 04:24, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >
> >> Any ideas, why simple tools like loginctl, busctl, hostnamectl require 
> >> 300K+ ?
> >> What's up with systemd-analyze?
> >
> > it embedds much of PID1's logic actually, in order to do unit file
> > checking.
> >
> >> Could we move more common functionality into a shared, private library
> >> to counter the constant growth?
> >
> > This has been discussed, and yeah, this should be a good thing to
> > do. It's just a matter of doing it. A shared, but explicitly private
> > library would be good. I figure it should be built from the stuff in
> > src/shared and src/basic. This would mean it won't help in the
> > systemd-analyze in case, but I think it's OK, given that that's a
> > debugging tool.
> 
> Looks like this is not quite that simple. I fiddled with this for a
> bit without any success.
> We have quite a bit of noinst libs atm [1].
> Would you turn all those into pkglib_LTLIBRARIES?
> Merge them into a single lib (or maybe two: libudev-internal and
> libsystemd-internal?)

Well, again, I'd really focus on basic and shared and turn them into
one lib. Stuff like libcore is only used by PID 1 and systemd-analyze
and hence not worth sharing I would say. And things like
libmachine-core only exists in order to make test cases that test the
machined sources easy. The library is used only by a single binary
that is actually also installed.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel