Re: [systemd-devel] Erlang bindings for systemd-notify API
Hello All! 2016-06-24 17:28 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering : > On Thu, 23.06.16 16:12, Peter Lemenkov (lemen...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Sorry for resurrecting of an old thread, but I really hope to finish >> this task :) >> What should I do for moving this library under systemd umbrella? >> What's the next step? > > I copied your repo now into the systemd umbrella, made the "erlang" > group we already have admin of it, and added you to it. Cool, thanks! > I hope this is all that's needed? Yes, I think so. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] x bits set on /run/systemd/private, any particular reason?
On Fri, 24.06.16 11:24, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) (mho...@de.adit-jv.com) wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not an expert on Linux access right management but I'm wondering > why systemd's private socket (/run/systemd/private) has the x bits > set. Did it happen accidently? We don't do that explicitly. That's simply what the kernel does if you invoke bind(). Compare: $ socat UNIX-LISTEN:/tmp/fff - ^Z [1]+ Stopped socat UNIX-LISTEN:/tmp/fff - $ stat /tmp/fff File: '/tmp/fff' Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 socket Device: 2bh/43d Inode: 3604282 Links: 1 Access: (0775/srwxrwxr-x) Uid: ( 1000/ lennart) Gid: ( 1000/ lennart) Context: unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 Access: 2016-06-24 20:28:56.692037876 +0200 Modify: 2016-06-24 20:28:56.692037876 +0200 Change: 2016-06-24 20:28:56.692037876 +0200 Birth: - $ fg socat UNIX-LISTEN:/tmp/fff - ^C And this doesn't matter much as the x bit has no real effect on AF_UNIX sockets. (much like i has no effect on fifos or symlinks). 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] x bits set on /run/systemd/private, any particular reason?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) < mho...@de.adit-jv.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I’m not an expert on Linux access right management but I’m wondering why > systemd’s private socket (/run/systemd/private) has the x bits set. Did it > happen accidently? > Immediately after bind(), the socket will have all permissions that weren't masked out by the current umask – there doesn't seem to be an equivalent to the mode parameter of open(). The default umask for init is 0; it seems that while systemd does set a more restrictive umask when necessary, it doesn't bother doing so when setting up the private socket, so it ends up having 0777 permissions by default... Either way, +x has no meaning on sockets (only +w matters). Checking `find /run -type s -ls`, it seems services aren't very consistent whether to keep or remove it for their own sockets... -- Mantas Mikulėnas ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Erlang bindings for systemd-notify API
On Thu, 23.06.16 16:12, Peter Lemenkov (lemen...@gmail.com) wrote: > Sorry for resurrecting of an old thread, but I really hope to finish > this task :) > What should I do for moving this library under systemd umbrella? > What's the next step? I copied your repo now into the systemd umbrella, made the "erlang" group we already have admin of it, and added you to it. I hope this is all that's needed? Thanks for contributing this! 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] how to use per-user systemd --user services / how to replace /etc/xdg/autostart/app.desktop?
Mantas Mikulėnas [2016-06-16 16:03 +0300]: > So I would create a separate graphical.target and manually `systemctl > start` it via .xprofile or such. (Don't forget, also, that graphical > programs usually need $DISPLAY, and this is only imported to the --user > manager /after/ default.target has already started.) That's in fact my current schema too. We want to convert the Ubuntu user session from (session) upstart to (per-user) systemd units, and my current prototype [1] defines a "graphical.slice", the actual services hook into that (or perhaps into a subslice like graphical-xfce.slice), and the whole Xsession gets wrapped into starting/stopping the per-session-type slice [2]. It's still a prototype (work on this is postponed until end of July on a sprint), but so far this works reasonably well. Martin [1] https://git.launchpad.net/~pitti/+git/systemd-graphical-session/tree/ [2] https://git.launchpad.net/~pitti/+git/systemd-graphical-session/tree/usr/share/systemd-graphical-session/session-wrapper -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] x bits set on /run/systemd/private, any particular reason?
Hi, I'm not an expert on Linux access right management but I'm wondering why systemd's private socket (/run/systemd/private) has the x bits set. Did it happen accidently? Can someone explain? Best regards Marko Hoyer Advanced Driver Information Technology GmbH Software Group II (ADITG/SW2) Robert-Bosch-Str. 200 31139 Hildesheim Germany Tel. +49 5121 49 6948 Fax +49 5121 49 6999 mho...@de.adit-jv.com ADIT is a joint venture company of Robert Bosch GmbH/Robert Bosch Car Multimedia GmbH and DENSO Corporation Sitz: Hildesheim, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hildesheim HRB 3438 Geschäftsführung: Wilhelm Grabow, Ken Yaguchi ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] does "Before=network.target" really work
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Xin Long wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Xin Long wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is >>> stopped when system shutdown. >>> >>> I checked "man systemd.special ", network is a special internal >>> service for systemd, , and I found "network.target": >>> "at shutdown, a unit that is ordered after network.target will be >>> stopped before the network -- to whatever level it might be set up >>> then -- is shut down". >>> That means "After=network.target" can work well. >>> >>> But my situation is opposite to that, I need "a unit that is ordered >>> before network.target will be stopped *after* the network so >>> shutdown". >>> >>> So I added "Before=network.target" to .service file. can it really >>> work as I expect? >>> >> >> No. That is why systemd was forced to introduce additional >> network-pre.target to make it possible to explicitly order things >> before networking is started (or stop after networking has been >> stopped - assuming of course that all services that implement >> networking correct order themselves After network-pre.target). > > So you mean "Before=network-pre.target" can work on my case, right ? > Yes. >>> I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is >>> stopped when system shutdown > > and since which version "network-pre.target" was introduced ? > cause I didn't find it in "man systemd.special" in my system. No idea. It is commit a4a878d04045b46fa9783664e3643a890b356790. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] does "Before=network.target" really work
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Michael Hirmke wrote: > Hi Xin, > >>Hi, > >>I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is >>stopped when system shutdown. > >>I checked "man systemd.special ", network is a special internal >>service for systemd, , and I found "network.target": >>"at shutdown, a unit that is ordered after network.target will be >>stopped before the network -- to whatever level it might be set up >>then -- is shut down". >>That means "After=network.target" can work well. > >>But my situation is opposite to that, I need "a unit that is ordered >>before network.target will be stopped *after* the network so >>shutdown". > >>So I added "Before=network.target" to .service file. can it really >>work as I expect? > > it depends on what you're trying to do with this information. > AFAIK network.target is related to the network stack as such. It does > not apply to a certain interface is up, down, activated or deactivated. > If you need the information for the network stack being up or down, > the use of network.target is ok - and works for me. > my case only cares about shutdown time. I do not know "Before=network.target" can make my service stop after which phase of network is stopped. and I also cannot find anything in man doc. but I can find some services are truly using it now: $ grep "Before=network.target" . -R ./wpa_supplicant.service:Before=network.target ./NetworkManager.service:Before=network.target ./NetworkManager-wait-online.service:Before=network.target network-online.target ./arp-ethers.service:Before=network.target ./firewalld.service:Before=network.target what I need is just make sure my service will stop after we just can't communicate with other host. (no need to after device down, or stack is removed) ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] does "Before=network.target" really work
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Xin Long wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is >> stopped when system shutdown. >> >> I checked "man systemd.special ", network is a special internal >> service for systemd, , and I found "network.target": >> "at shutdown, a unit that is ordered after network.target will be >> stopped before the network -- to whatever level it might be set up >> then -- is shut down". >> That means "After=network.target" can work well. >> >> But my situation is opposite to that, I need "a unit that is ordered >> before network.target will be stopped *after* the network so >> shutdown". >> >> So I added "Before=network.target" to .service file. can it really >> work as I expect? >> > > No. That is why systemd was forced to introduce additional > network-pre.target to make it possible to explicitly order things > before networking is started (or stop after networking has been > stopped - assuming of course that all services that implement > networking correct order themselves After network-pre.target). So you mean "Before=network-pre.target" can work on my case, right ? >> I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is >> stopped when system shutdown and since which version "network-pre.target" was introduced ? cause I didn't find it in "man systemd.special" in my system. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] does "Before=network.target" really work
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Xin Long wrote: > Hi, > > I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is > stopped when system shutdown. > > I checked "man systemd.special ", network is a special internal > service for systemd, , and I found "network.target": > "at shutdown, a unit that is ordered after network.target will be > stopped before the network -- to whatever level it might be set up > then -- is shut down". > That means "After=network.target" can work well. > > But my situation is opposite to that, I need "a unit that is ordered > before network.target will be stopped *after* the network so > shutdown". > > So I added "Before=network.target" to .service file. can it really > work as I expect? > No. That is why systemd was forced to introduce additional network-pre.target to make it possible to explicitly order things before networking is started (or stop after networking has been stopped - assuming of course that all services that implement networking correct order themselves After network-pre.target). ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] does "Before=network.target" really work
Hi Xin, >Hi, >I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is >stopped when system shutdown. >I checked "man systemd.special ", network is a special internal >service for systemd, , and I found "network.target": >"at shutdown, a unit that is ordered after network.target will be >stopped before the network -- to whatever level it might be set up >then -- is shut down". >That means "After=network.target" can work well. >But my situation is opposite to that, I need "a unit that is ordered >before network.target will be stopped *after* the network so >shutdown". >So I added "Before=network.target" to .service file. can it really >work as I expect? it depends on what you're trying to do with this information. AFAIK network.target is related to the network stack as such. It does not apply to a certain interface is up, down, activated or deactivated. If you need the information for the network stack being up or down, the use of network.target is ok - and works for me. >Thanks Bye. Michael. -- Michael Hirmke ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] does "Before=network.target" really work
Hi, I have a service, and want it to be stopped only after network is stopped when system shutdown. I checked "man systemd.special ", network is a special internal service for systemd, , and I found "network.target": "at shutdown, a unit that is ordered after network.target will be stopped before the network -- to whatever level it might be set up then -- is shut down". That means "After=network.target" can work well. But my situation is opposite to that, I need "a unit that is ordered before network.target will be stopped *after* the network so shutdown". So I added "Before=network.target" to .service file. can it really work as I expect? Thanks ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel