[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[lslebodn]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

lslebodn commented:
"""
master:

* bd5e09bad2b0ac8a7ca78f45d90c8ebb903efaa3
* 0adcf95a423155f9c9d8062af42561402ceab4cc
"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283311920
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[fidencio]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

fidencio commented:
"""
New patch set has been pushed.
"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283298505
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[jhrozek]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

jhrozek commented:
"""
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:30:15AM -0800, fidencio wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, lslebodn  wrote:
> 
> > On (28/02/17 13:01), fidencio wrote:
> > >I've talked to Lukáš on the office before replying the email :-)
> > >Anyways, no, it won't be enough. BindsTo and After *must* *go* *together*.
> > >We use BindsTo on all services' sockets and not using After as well may
> > >lead to unexpected behaviour.
> > >
> >
> > The main problem is that commit message is not clear enough
> > and contain unclear statemets e.g.
> > > While debugging the whole breakage reported by Stric I've noticed that
> > > the NSS socket has been starting up the NSS responder _before_ SSSD
> > > being up, leading us to a chaotic situation.
> >
> > What does chaotic situation mean here?
> >
> 
> As far as I remember, that some services like systemd-logind will try to
> start and will time out. It will cause other services to timeout. So the
> boot will take a really long time and so services won't be working after
> the boot is completed.

This is probably caused by libc doing initgroups on pretty much any
account. Since initgroups must check all NSS modules in order to be
precise and talking to nss_sss would trigger talking to the NSS
responder. Then, if the account wasn't from SSSD, the NSS responder
would try talking to the Data Provider which is not up yet, because SSSD
is not up, so the whole process hangs until libc gives up which takes 2
minutes by default.

> 
> Would be enough adding this info? If not, may I ask you for some suggestion
> as well?
> 
> >
> > There is also a missing context about "BindsTo".
> >
> > >By adding this ordering explicitly we can avoid the reported situation.
> > >Also, it has been recommend by Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must
> > >be used together (although it's still not mentioned yet in the systemd
> > >documentation).
> >
> > IIUC "BindsTo" is a stricter relation between units then "Requires"
> > and therefore "After" need to be used to avoid unuexpected/undefined
> > behaviour.
> >
> 
> I added something similar to your suggestion to the commit message.
> Thanks.
> 
> Best Regards,
> --
> Fabiano Fidêncio
> 
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this because you were assigned.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283289617

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283292747
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[fidencio]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

fidencio commented:
"""
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, lslebodn  wrote:

> On (28/02/17 13:01), fidencio wrote:
> >I've talked to Lukáš on the office before replying the email :-)
> >Anyways, no, it won't be enough. BindsTo and After *must* *go* *together*.
> >We use BindsTo on all services' sockets and not using After as well may
> >lead to unexpected behaviour.
> >
>
> The main problem is that commit message is not clear enough
> and contain unclear statemets e.g.
> > While debugging the whole breakage reported by Stric I've noticed that
> > the NSS socket has been starting up the NSS responder _before_ SSSD
> > being up, leading us to a chaotic situation.
>
> What does chaotic situation mean here?
>

As far as I remember, that some services like systemd-logind will try to
start and will time out. It will cause other services to timeout. So the
boot will take a really long time and so services won't be working after
the boot is completed.

Would be enough adding this info? If not, may I ask you for some suggestion
as well?


>
> There is also a missing context about "BindsTo".
>
> >By adding this ordering explicitly we can avoid the reported situation.
> >Also, it has been recommend by Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must
> >be used together (although it's still not mentioned yet in the systemd
> >documentation).
>
> IIUC "BindsTo" is a stricter relation between units then "Requires"
> and therefore "After" need to be used to avoid unuexpected/undefined
> behaviour.
>

I added something similar to your suggestion to the commit message.
Thanks.

Best Regards,
--
Fabiano Fidêncio

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283289617
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[lslebodn]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

lslebodn commented:
"""
On (28/02/17 13:01), fidencio wrote:
>I've talked to Lukáš on the office before replying the email :-)
>Anyways, no, it won't be enough. BindsTo and After *must* *go* *together*.
>We use BindsTo on all services' sockets and not using After as well may
>lead to unexpected behaviour.
>

The main problem is that commit message is not clear enough
and contain unclear statemets e.g.
> While debugging the whole breakage reported by Stric I've noticed that
> the NSS socket has been starting up the NSS responder _before_ SSSD
> being up, leading us to a chaotic situation.

What does chaotic situation mean here?

There is also a missing context about "BindsTo".

>By adding this ordering explicitly we can avoid the reported situation.
>Also, it has been recommend by Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must
>be used together (although it's still not mentioned yet in the systemd
>documentation).

IIUC "BindsTo" is a stricter relation between units then "Requires"
and therefore "After" need to be used to avoid unuexpected/undefined
behaviour.

LS

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283279883
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[fidencio]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

fidencio commented:
"""
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Jakub Hrozek 
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:51:26AM -0800, fidencio wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:25 PM, lslebodn 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On (28/02/17 04:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > >I tested the patches both during the VM operation bringing different
> > > responders up and during system boot. I haven't see any issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A tiny question.
> > > Do we need to add After to all sockets?
> > > The ideal would be that socket will trigger starting of responder
> > > and monitor will be started as a dependency of responder.
> > >
> > > I thought it is required just for nss due to some circular dependency.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate explanation. So if someone decide to remove it in
> future
> > > he will consider problematic use-case.
> > >
> >
> > Lukáš,
> >
> > That was a recommendation of Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must go
> > together. It's mentioned in the commit message.
> > Lukáš Nykrýn also mentioned they will fix their docs about this.
>
> I think Lukas was asking about something else -- would it be enough to
> only add those changes to the nss socket file?


I've talked to Lukáš on the office before replying the email :-)
Anyways, no, it won't be enough. BindsTo and After *must* *go* *together*.
We use BindsTo on all services' sockets and not using After as well may
lead to unexpected behaviour.


>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> , or mute
> the thread
> 
> .
>

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283158870
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[jhrozek]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

jhrozek commented:
"""
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:51:26AM -0800, fidencio wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:25 PM, lslebodn  wrote:
> 
> > On (28/02/17 04:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >I tested the patches both during the VM operation bringing different
> > responders up and during system boot. I haven't see any issues.
> > >
> >
> > A tiny question.
> > Do we need to add After to all sockets?
> > The ideal would be that socket will trigger starting of responder
> > and monitor will be started as a dependency of responder.
> >
> > I thought it is required just for nss due to some circular dependency.
> >
> > I would appreciate explanation. So if someone decide to remove it in future
> > he will consider problematic use-case.
> >
> 
> Lukáš,
> 
> That was a recommendation of Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must go
> together. It's mentioned in the commit message.
> Lukáš Nykrýn also mentioned they will fix their docs about this.

I think Lukas was asking about something else -- would it be enough to
only add those changes to the nss socket file?

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283155833
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[fidencio]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

fidencio commented:
"""
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:25 PM, lslebodn  wrote:

> On (28/02/17 04:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >I tested the patches both during the VM operation bringing different
> responders up and during system boot. I haven't see any issues.
> >
>
> A tiny question.
> Do we need to add After to all sockets?
> The ideal would be that socket will trigger starting of responder
> and monitor will be started as a dependency of responder.
>
> I thought it is required just for nss due to some circular dependency.
>
> I would appreciate explanation. So if someone decide to remove it in future
> he will consider problematic use-case.
>

Lukáš,

That was a recommendation of Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must go
together. It's mentioned in the commit message.
Lukáš Nykrýn also mentioned they will fix their docs about this.

Best Regards,
--
Fabiano Fidêncio

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283077512
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[lslebodn]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

lslebodn commented:
"""
On (28/02/17 04:27), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>I tested the patches both during the VM operation bringing different 
>responders up and during system boot. I haven't see any issues.
>

A tiny question.
Do we need to add After to all sockets?
The ideal would be that socket will trigger starting of responder
and monitor will be started as a dependency of responder.

I thought it is required just for nss due to some circular dependency.

I would appreciate explanation. So if someone decide to remove it in future
he will consider problematic use-case.

LS

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283069714
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] [sssd PR#143][comment] Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

[jhrozek]

  URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143
Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets

jhrozek commented:
"""
I tested the patches both during the VM operation bringing different responders 
up and during system boot. I haven't see any issues.

ACK
"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283026260
___
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org