Re: [systemd-devel] systemd startup
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 6:47 PM Michał Zegan wrote: > Note that if systemd is running in the initramfs too, then journal logs > from the current boot will contain initramfs logs too. > True, but it won't necessarily show whether event order is enforced by configuration, or merely accidental because one service is slower than another. -- Mantas Mikulėnas ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] How to compile systemd v219
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:36 AM Ankele zhang wrote: > > On CentOS7.6(3.10.0-957.el7.x86_64), I encrypt my root disk and I have to > enter my passphrase while booting my CentOS before mount root disk. Now, I > want to hardcode the passphrase into the program, what should I do? > IMHO you should give up on that idea and just configure a keyfile (e.g. using the rd.luks.key= boot option). It's a more supported method and the key information is easy to extract in both cases. > > I have tried to recompile `systemd` source V219 but I don not really > understand how to compile it correctly. So I test on > Fedora31(5.3.7-301.fc31.x86_64), compile `systemd` V243 and replace the > executable binary in initramfs-$(uname -r).img with the compiled > systemd-cryptsetup file. But it does not work. > > and I execute `file new_systemd-cryptsetup` and execute `file > old_systemd-cryptsetup`, I got some difference between them. > # file systemd-cryptsetup > > systemd-cryptsetup: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), > dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, > BuildID[sha1]=9935897aeaf65a746e86f8af2c2a960c4a316acc, for GNU/Linux > 3.2.0, with debug_info, not stripped > # file systemd-cryptsetup.bak > > systemd-cryptsetup.bak: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 > (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, > BuildID[sha1]=fe13d068d10950b02945537972a4f5b687f41cc0, for GNU/Linux > 3.2.0, stripped > Did you build from tthe Fedora RPM or manually from systemd source? Debug info is usually removed during packaging using `strip`. -- Mantas Mikulėnas ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] How to compile systemd v219
On CentOS7.6(3.10.0-957.el7.x86_64), I encrypt my root disk and I have to enter my passphrase while booting my CentOS before mount root disk. Now, I want to hardcode the passphrase into the program, what should I do? I have tried to recompile `systemd` source V219 but I don not really understand how to compile it correctly. So I test on Fedora31(5.3.7-301.fc31.x86_64), compile `systemd` V243 and replace the executable binary in initramfs-$(uname -r).img with the compiled systemd-cryptsetup file. But it does not work. and I execute `file new_systemd-cryptsetup` and execute `file old_systemd-cryptsetup`, I got some difference between them. # file systemd-cryptsetup > systemd-cryptsetup: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, BuildID[sha1]=9935897aeaf65a746e86f8af2c2a960c4a316acc, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, with debug_info, not stripped # file systemd-cryptsetup.bak > systemd-cryptsetup.bak: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, BuildID[sha1]=fe13d068d10950b02945537972a4f5b687f41cc0, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped [image: image.png] I'm dying to know how to compile correctly, thank you very much. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Make systemd-localed modify the kernel commandline for the initrd keymap?
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Well, what I proposed is a file. OSTree can cover files on disk, no? Yes...we can try to figure out an extension to version them. > I doubt on AWS you want to configure keymaps though, do you? No, but there are similar server cases: - iSCSI which apparently has quite nontrivial configuration files (things you wouldn't ergonomically do in the kernel cmdline) so they end up requiring regenerating the initramfs. - Tang/NBDE https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Security_Guide/sec-Using_Network-Bound_Disk_Encryption.html And for OpenShift 4 we are aiming to support NBDE even in clouds like AWS for a few reasons; some customers don't want to 100% rely on EBS encryption, and supporting it everywhere makes our story for bare metal installation more consistent. Finally another case just came up, which is enabling some real-time kernel tuning: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775917 Today tuned injects some bits into the initramfs for this - specifically we need to configure systemd in the initramfs for the `CPUAffinity`. I've lately been thinking maybe we should just generalize this and introduce: /boot/etc The initramfs then can mount /boot and read files from it (or just copy in over its own /etc). One downside of this though is that it doesn't apply to PXE/NFS-root (diskless) scenarios. Those need either an overlay initramfs or kernel cmdline. Though, I guess for CPUAffinity we really need this set up and readable before systemd even starts. Hmm. So maybe we really need systemd.cpuaffinity= as a kernel argument - and in general, anything necessary for the kernel or systemd in the initramfs need to be kernel arguments. Anything after that could be /boot/etc or an overlay initramfs. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 06:13:17PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 15:19 +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > > Requires=xyz.service > > > > > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no > > > xyz.service > > > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error > > > in this case? > > > > The docs say you can get this behavior if you also have After=xyz.service. > > (Not entirely sure why.) > > No when there IS NOT an "After=xyz.service". > > Without "After=", there is no ordering dependency - it just tells that > anything starting this unit will effectively order the start of the > other as well. Without ordering, this unit can be the one to start > first. If the other one fails to actually start later, that doesn't > make systemd go back to stop this one (note that this is consistent > with ordering dependencies - if a depended-on service fails later > during runtime, that does not automatically force a stop of already > running depending services). I guess this logic extends to failures of > the "does not exist at all" type where there was never a chance of > successfully starting the unit. Sounds like a bug. I'd expect the transaction to fail if the Required unit cannot be found. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
> Mantas Mikulėnas hat am 25. November 2019 um 14:19 > geschrieben: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jörg Weinhardt wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > the behavior of systemd is not quite clear to me: > > I have a service which requires another service to be started and running, > > so I use a Requires= dependency to the required service. > > But if the required service does not exist at all, there is no error > > message from systemd. > > e.g. > > > > Requires=xyz.service > > > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no > > xyz.service > > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error > > in this case? > > > > The docs say you can get this behavior if you also have After=xyz.service. > (Not entirely sure why.) > Thanks for the quick answer. Require= and After= together also accepts a non existing xyz.service. But as I read the docs I found the dependency "BindsTo=" which together with "After=" does the job. Not so easy.. regards, Joerg ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
Joerg, I'm not anything near an expert, but perhaps you could try "PartOf=..." in the Unit section for the dependent service. I'll be interested in hearing others' opinion of this idea. But, really, a missing service file shouldn't get out the door. Bruce A. Johnson Chantilly, VA On 25/11/2019 08.07, Jörg Weinhardt wrote: > Hi, > > the behavior of systemd is not quite clear to me: > I have a service which requires another service to be started and running, > so I use a Requires= dependency to the required service. > But if the required service does not exist at all, there is no error message > from systemd. > e.g. > > Requires=xyz.service > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no xyz.service > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error in > this case? > > If I write > "Requires=xyz" > > there will be a message: Failed to add dependency on xyz, ignoring: Invalid > argument > Does that error mean that "xyz" is not a valid unit name? > > Thank you, > Joerg > ___ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 13:22 +, mikko.rap...@bmw.de wrote: > Maybe you need Wants instead of Requires in the service file. I don't think so. "Wants" is in the opposite direction - it explicitly does not require the other unit to successfully start. Even with "After=" specified, it just makes an attempt to start the other unit, and will then start this unit whether that succeeded or failed. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 15:19 +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > Requires=xyz.service > > > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no xyz.service > > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error in > > this case? > > The docs say you can get this behavior if you also have After=xyz.service. > (Not entirely sure why.) No when there IS NOT an "After=xyz.service". Without "After=", there is no ordering dependency - it just tells that anything starting this unit will effectively order the start of the other as well. Without ordering, this unit can be the one to start first. If the other one fails to actually start later, that doesn't make systemd go back to stop this one (note that this is consistent with ordering dependencies - if a depended-on service fails later during runtime, that does not automatically force a stop of already running depending services). I guess this logic extends to failures of the "does not exist at all" type where there was never a chance of successfully starting the unit. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Jörg Weinhardt wrote: > Hi, > > the behavior of systemd is not quite clear to me: > I have a service which requires another service to be started and running, > so I use a Requires= dependency to the required service. > But if the required service does not exist at all, there is no error message > from systemd. > e.g. > > Requires=xyz.service > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no xyz.service > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error in > this case? > > If I write > "Requires=xyz" > > there will be a message: Failed to add dependency on xyz, ignoring: Invalid > argument > Does that error mean that "xyz" is not a valid unit name? I guess all these are by design. Maybe you need Wants instead of Requires in the service file. See: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.unit.html#Requires= and https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.unit.html#Wants= and possibly even https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.unit.html#Before= Cheers, -Mikko > > Thank you, > Joerg > ___ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jörg Weinhardt wrote: > Hi, > > the behavior of systemd is not quite clear to me: > I have a service which requires another service to be started and running, > so I use a Requires= dependency to the required service. > But if the required service does not exist at all, there is no error > message from systemd. > e.g. > > Requires=xyz.service > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no > xyz.service > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error > in this case? > The docs say you can get this behavior if you also have After=xyz.service. (Not entirely sure why.) > > If I write > "Requires=xyz" > > there will be a message: Failed to add dependency on xyz, ignoring: > Invalid argument > Does that error mean that "xyz" is not a valid unit name? > It's not a valid unit name if it doesn't have a ".type" suffix. `systemctl start xyz` will just auto-expand it to xyz.service or something that makes sense for systemctl, but systemd's configuration files do not accept such shortcuts. -- Mantas Mikulėnas ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] No error even a Required= service does not exist
Hi, the behavior of systemd is not quite clear to me: I have a service which requires another service to be started and running, so I use a Requires= dependency to the required service. But if the required service does not exist at all, there is no error message from systemd. e.g. Requires=xyz.service produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no xyz.service Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error in this case? If I write "Requires=xyz" there will be a message: Failed to add dependency on xyz, ignoring: Invalid argument Does that error mean that "xyz" is not a valid unit name? Thank you, Joerg ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
