Re: [systemd-devel] stacked automounts

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fr, 24.11.17 21:03, Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) wrote:

> Is there a way to have stacked automounts?

This is not supported right now. When an automount is first set up,
all mounts in its prefix paths are mounted first. Hence, while what
you configure there is accepted, it doesn't do what you want it to do:
it would set up two mounts and two automounts, but after boot you'll
find that the upper automount is already triggered, and thus the upper
mount already mounted. 

This is fixable, but so far noone spent the time to do so.

> In this example only /d is mounted when /d/l/1/ is accessed:
> 
> LABEL=d/d xfs 
> noatime,x-systemd.automount,x-systemd.idle-timeout=22 1 2
> /d/i/1.iso /d/l/1 iso9660 
> ro,loop,x-systemd.automount,x-systemd.idle-timeout=11 0 0
> 
> In the logs I see:
> Set up automount d-l-1.automount.
> Unset automount d-l-1.automount.
> 
> Olaf



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



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] Question

[Lennart Poettering]

On Sa, 25.11.17 15:24, Peter Diks (peterd...@gmail.com) wrote:

> Hello Systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
> 
> There is something i do not understand at this point and would like to
> solve it.
> A brand new Tumbleweed Kubic, has enable repositories and zypper runs fine,
> untill it has to install.
> Error: Subprocess failed. Error: RPM failed: error: Can 't create
> transaction lock on /var/lib/.rpm.lock ( inappropriate ioctl for device )
> Earlier i had the same sort of trouble: installing on a read-only fs.
> A mount -o remount,rw / does not change that ( although i'm root )
> So i can 't run Zypper up.

Sorry, but this is not a systemd-related question. Please ping the
SUSE tumbleweed community instead. Thanks.

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] Question about service dependency handling in systemd-228

[Reindl Harald]

Am 27.11.2017 um 05:23 schrieb Bao Nguyen:
Thanks all for your comments. I will try to use option FreeBind. However 
could anyone explain for me that I did not use FreeBind option in 
systems-210 but all my services start well? I am still inclined to the 
different of systemd-228 and systemd-210 causes the current issue.


beause your configuration was undefined behavior and never made any 
sense when there are dependency loops and similar problems - systemd 
does and did the best not throw you to the mergency console and boot the 
system somehow, pointed out errors and now it's time to fi them


IMHO it would be justified not to boot at all if there is as example a 
unit which has itself in After/Before/Requires as example when someone 
don't read his systemlogs after change units and "systemctl 
daemon-reload" :-)


On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote:




Am 26.11.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Bao Nguyen:

Regard to your question, "asi-My-5101.socket" depends on
"My-sshd.target", I think that in my case it is expected as my
socket listens on a specific address IP:port so it should start
after a network service to configure and assign IP address
before my socket runs


nonsense - the whole point of socket activation is to have sockets
listening before other stuff is up and running

https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.socket.html

If an IP address is used here, it is often desirable to listen on it
before the interface it is configured on is up and running, and even
regardless of whether it will be up and running at any point. To
deal with this, it is recommended to set the FreeBind= option
described below

FreeBind=
Takes a boolean value. Controls whether the socket can be bound to
non-local IP addresses. This is useful to configure sockets
listening on specific IP addresses before those IP addresses are
successfully configured on a network interface. This sets the
IP_FREEBIND socket option. For robustness reasons it is recommended
to use this option whenever you bind a socket to a specific IP
address. Defaults to false.

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

[systemd-devel] [Question]: About systemctl and its related commands

[千葉幹正]

We have a few questions about systemctl and -H option.

It looks like systemctl is communicating with /run/systemd/private in order
to interact with systemd.

However, after you log in the connected computer via ssh, it looks like
it's trying to control systemd by going through systemd-stdio-bridge when
you use systemctl's -H option.

Instead of going through /run/systemd/private, it looks like
systemd-stdio-bridge is going through /run/dbus/system_bus_socket (which is
usually created by dbus daemon) in order to control systemd.

This where we run into the following 2 questions:

1. Is it necessary to start up dbus daemon on the computer we're connecting
to in order to control systemd by using the systemctl -H option?

2. Are we correct in our understanding that /run/systemd/private exists to
control systemctl though the local systemd?

Why does systemctl use the specialized interface called
/run/systemd/private to control systemd?
Why doesn't systemd-stdio-bridge control systemd via /run/systemd/private
like systemctl does?

Any information you can provide about the above would be much appreciated!
Thanks in advance for your time and all your help.

All the best,

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