Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-18 Thread Martin Pitt
Lennart Poettering [2015-05-18 14:10 +0200]: The whole point of the tentative state is that devices showing up in /proc/self/mountinfo but not in /sys are put in it. Are you saying that does not work? Simple demonstration with some bind mount: # systemd-nspawn -b -D /tmp/myroot --bind

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-18 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mon, 18.05.15 06:41, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote: Lennart Poettering [2015-05-17 18:06 +0200]: More specifically, they should follow the second item in the Execution Environment section: pre-mount /sys read-only in the container. That's the default indeed, but you can

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-18 Thread Martin Pitt
Hello Lennart, Lennart Poettering [2015-05-18 14:10 +0200]: I don't really grok what the problem you are experencing is supposed to be: note that a device showing up in /proc/self/mountinfo means it will be set to tentative state, and thus will not resolve in an unmount. What more do you

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-18 Thread Martin Pitt
Andrei Borzenkov [2015-05-14 14:24 +0300]: Will it be rebound when device appears? Otherwise any mount that happens before udev is started/happens to notice device will not be associated with device. Most common case is probably mounts inherited from initrd. Not with the first patch (the one

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-17 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Sun, 17.05.15 13:02, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote: Hey Lennart, Lennart Poettering [2015-05-14 18:09 +0200]: As I mentioned before, simply ignoring /dev/root doesn't help in all cases, and hardcoding it in the code is a bit ugly. It doesn't help in all cases? Which

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-17 Thread Martin Pitt
Lennart Poettering [2015-05-17 18:06 +0200]: More specifically, they should follow the second item in the Execution Environment section: pre-mount /sys read-only in the container. That's the default indeed, but you can configure it otherwise. While that might be questionable, it's just one way

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-17 Thread Martin Pitt
Hey Lennart, Lennart Poettering [2015-05-14 18:09 +0200]: As I mentioned before, simply ignoring /dev/root doesn't help in all cases, and hardcoding it in the code is a bit ugly. It doesn't help in all cases? Which ones? Can you elaborate? It doesn't seem to help at all in e. g. LXC. This

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-14 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 14.05.15 12:51, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote: This is very bad. As a harmless action like following: # mount --bind /opt /opt Results in opt.mount unit to be generated which BindsTo dev-root.device, which is inactive, thus systemd tries to stop that unit

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-14 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
В Thu, 14 May 2015 12:51:37 +0200 Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com пишет: Hello all, Dimitri John Ledkov [2015-05-13 12:48 +0100]: I am booting without initramfs, using a plan9 filesystem as rootfs in a kvm. Thus my /proc/cmdline has: root=/dev/root

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-14 Thread Martin Pitt
Hello all, Dimitri John Ledkov [2015-05-13 12:48 +0100]: I am booting without initramfs, using a plan9 filesystem as rootfs in a kvm. Thus my /proc/cmdline has: root=/dev/root rootflags=rw,trans=virtio,version=9p2000.L rootfstype=9p # mount /dev/root on / type 9p

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-13 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Wed, 13.05.15 12:48, Dimitri John Ledkov (dimitri.j.led...@intel.com) wrote: I am booting without initramfs, using a plan9 filesystem as rootfs in a kvm. Thus my /proc/cmdline has: root=/dev/root rootflags=rw,trans=virtio,version=9p2000.L rootfstype=9p # mount /dev/root on / type 9p

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-13 Thread Martin Pitt
Hey Dimitri, Dimitri John Ledkov [2015-05-13 12:48 +0100]: Yet, dev-root.device is dead: # systemctl status dev-root.device ● dev-root.device Loaded: loaded Active: inactive (dead) This is very bad. As a harmless action like following: # mount --bind /opt /opt Results in

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-13 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Heya, On 13 May 2015 at 12:53, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hey Dimitri, Dimitri John Ledkov [2015-05-13 12:48 +0100]: Yet, dev-root.device is dead: # systemctl status dev-root.device ● dev-root.device Loaded: loaded Active: inactive (dead) This is very bad. As a

[systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-13 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
I am booting without initramfs, using a plan9 filesystem as rootfs in a kvm. Thus my /proc/cmdline has: root=/dev/root rootflags=rw,trans=virtio,version=9p2000.L rootfstype=9p # mount /dev/root on / type 9p (rw,relatime,sync,dirsync,rw,trans=virtio,version=9p2000.L) Yet, dev-root.device is

Re: [systemd-devel] dev-root.device is not active, results in an umount spree

2015-05-13 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On 13 May 2015 at 13:43, Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net wrote: On Wed, 13.05.15 12:48, Dimitri John Ledkov (dimitri.j.led...@intel.com) wrote: I am booting without initramfs, using a plan9 filesystem as rootfs in a kvm. Thus my /proc/cmdline has: root=/dev/root