Re: [systemd-devel] systemd and chroot()

On 6/4/19 1:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:42:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> We are adding some new functionality to the NFS server that >> will make it a bit more container friendly... >> >> This new functionality needs to do a

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd and chroot()

On 6/4/19 12:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:42 AM Steve Dickson wrote: >> AVC avc: denied { sys_chroot } for pid=2919 comm="rpc.mountd" >> capability=18 scontext=system_u:system_r:nfsd_t:s0 >> tcontext=system_u:system_r:nfsd_t:s0 tclass=capability permissive=0 >

[systemd-devel] 5.2rc2, circular lock warning systemd-journal and btrfs_page_mkwrite

This is on Fedora Rawhide systemd-242-3.git7a6d834.fc31.x86_64 kernel 5.2.0-0.rc2.git1.2.fc31.x86_64 Pretty and complete log: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vhnIki9lpiWK8T5Qsl81_RToQ8CFdnfU Probably MUA wrapped, and excerpt only: [7.816458] fmac.local systemd[1]: Starting Flush Journal

Re: [systemd-devel] Dbus problem fix :) now news programs broken

DBUs zombie process is back :’( Provenance : Courrier pour Windows 10 De : Dorian ROSSE Envoyé : Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:34:15 AM À : systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Objet : Dbus problem fix :) now news

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd and chroot()

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:42:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > Hello, > > We are adding some new functionality to the NFS server that > will make it a bit more container friendly... > > This new functionality needs to do a chroot(2) system call. > This systemcall is failing with EPERM due

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd and chroot()

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:42 AM Steve Dickson wrote: > AVC avc: denied { sys_chroot } for pid=2919 comm="rpc.mountd" > capability=18 scontext=system_u:system_r:nfsd_t:s0 > tcontext=system_u:system_r:nfsd_t:s0 tclass=capability permissive=0 This is an SELinux policy violation, nothing to do

[systemd-devel] systemd and chroot()

Hello, We are adding some new functionality to the NFS server that will make it a bit more container friendly... This new functionality needs to do a chroot(2) system call. This systemcall is failing with EPERM due to the following AVC error: AVC avc: denied { sys_chroot } for pid=2919

Re: [systemd-devel] Wtrlt: Re: Antw: Re: Unexplainable unit restart ("Start request repeated too quickly")

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Michael Chapman schrieb am 04.06.2019 um 11:04 in > Nachricht : [...] > > As you can see, even E.service was only started once. > > > > Are you sure you were actually doing everything in one transaction? > > I guess your version is significantly

Re: [systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Q: ConditionPathExists=

Am 04.06.19 um 14:20 schrieb Ulrich Windl: Reindl Harald schrieb am 04.06.2019 um 13:56 in > Nachricht : > > [...] >> BTW: >> >> you could really make your life easier by looking at existing units > > I prefer specifications over examples, but you are right, I could have > guessed what

Re: [systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Q: ConditionPathExists=

Am 04.06.19 um 14:17 schrieb Ulrich Windl: >> | or - before an option makes no sense in a INI-syle cofnig > > I don't know the parser any INI style is Key=Value no matter the OS or software BTW: can you please only reply to the list instead reply all, your offlist copy is typically faster

[systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Q: ConditionPathExists=

>>> Reindl Harald schrieb am 04.06.2019 um 13:56 in Nachricht : [...] > BTW: > > you could really make your life easier by looking at existing units I prefer specifications over examples, but you are right, I could have guessed what the manual means if looking at an example, assuming the

[systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Q: ConditionPathExists=

>>> Reindl Harald schrieb am 04.06.2019 um 13:51 in Nachricht : > > Am 04.06.19 um 13:32 schrieb Ulrich Windl: >> Hi! >> >> I have a question for ConditionPathExists: >> If I specify two files like "ConditionPathExists=/etc/idredir.conf > /etc/isredir.conf", I get a "start condition failed"

Re: [systemd-devel] Q: ConditionPathExists=

Am 04.06.19 um 13:51 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > Am 04.06.19 um 13:32 schrieb Ulrich Windl: >> Hi! >> >> I have a question for ConditionPathExists: >> If I specify two files like "ConditionPathExists=/etc/idredir.conf >> /etc/isredir.conf", I get a "start condition failed" even if both files

Re: [systemd-devel] Q: ConditionPathExists=

On 04.06.19 13:32, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Hi! > > I have a question for ConditionPathExists: > If I specify two files like "ConditionPathExists=/etc/idredir.conf > /etc/isredir.conf", I get a "start condition failed" even if both files exist. > > There's also some confusion where exactly a

Re: [systemd-devel] Q: ConditionPathExists=

Am 04.06.19 um 13:32 schrieb Ulrich Windl: > Hi! > > I have a question for ConditionPathExists: > If I specify two files like "ConditionPathExists=/etc/idredir.conf > /etc/isredir.conf", I get a "start condition failed" even if both files exist. why don't you just use

[systemd-devel] Wtrlt: Re: Antw: Re: Unexplainable unit restart ("Start request repeated too quickly")

(Forgot to reply to all) --- Begin Message --- >>> Michael Chapman schrieb am 04.06.2019 um 11:04 in Nachricht : > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Ulrich Windl wrote: >> >>> Michael Chapman schrieb am 03.06.2019 um 13:14 in >> Nachricht : >> [...] >> > >> > Um, OK. I don't think we're any closer to

[systemd-devel] Q: ConditionPathExists=

Hi! I have a question for ConditionPathExists: If I specify two files like "ConditionPathExists=/etc/idredir.conf /etc/isredir.conf", I get a "start condition failed" even if both files exist. There's also some confusion where exactly a pipe sysmbol has to be placed: If multiple

[systemd-devel] Dbus problem fix :) now news programs broken

Hello, DBus is repaired since the qt dbus updates but I have a lot of programs broken as Following : Des erreurs ont été rencontrées pendant l'exécution : systemd-coredump openvpn monotone-server initramfs-tools linux-image-unsigned-5.1.6-050106-generic Error connecting: Error receiving data:

Re: [systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Unexplainable unit restart ("Start request repeated too quickly")

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Michael Chapman schrieb am 03.06.2019 um 13:14 in > Nachricht : > [...] > > > > Um, OK. I don't think we're any closer to solving your problem though. :-) > > Actually I am! > The root of the problem is that any oneshot service without >

Re: [systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Unexplainable unit restart ("Start request repeated too quickly")

>>> Michael Chapman schrieb am 03.06.2019 um 13:14 in Nachricht : [...] > > Um, OK. I don't think we're any closer to solving your problem though. :-) Actually I am! The root of the problem is that any oneshot service without RemainAfterExit=true is listed as "inactive (dead)" after being