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)
Ro
ag, 24. Juni 2016 18:31
To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Cc: systemd Mailing List
Subject: 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)
mailto:mho...@de.adit-jv.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I’m not an expert on Linux
Hello,
we are observing a weird behavior with systemd 211.
The issue:
-After the startup is finished (multi-user.target is reached), one
single job (typ: start, unit: service) remains in the job queue in state waiting
o There seems not to be any unmet dependency
o There are no un
ll try to
find the fix you are mentioning.
Best regards
Marko Hoyer
Software Group II (ADITG/SW2)
Tel. +49 5121 49 6948
-Original Message-
From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2016 20:44
To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
Cc: systemd Maili
Hello,
a tiny question:
- Is there any reason why the mount points /run and /dev/shm do not have
MS_NOEXEC flags set?
We like to remove execution capabilities from all volatile areas that are
writeable to users for security reasons.
Best regards
Marko Hoyer
___
Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2):
> a tiny question:
>
> - Is there any reason why the mount points /run and /dev/shm do not
> have MS_NOEXEC flags set?
>
> We like to remove execution capabilities from all volatile areas that
> are writeable to users for security reasons
it'
twoch, 1. Februar 2017 18:11
To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Any reason why /run and /dev/shm do not have
MS_NOEXEC flags set?
On 02/01/17 13:13, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks to all for your fast feedback. I'll kick off an int
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-
> boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of cee1
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:52 AM
> To: systemd Mailing List
> Subject: [systemd-devel] Reduce unit-loading time
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're trying systemd to boot up
Hi all,
jumping from systemd 206 to systemd 211 we were faced with some issue, which
are finally caused by a changed main loop priority of the job execution.
Our use case is the following one:
--
While we are starting up the system, a so called application starte
> >
> > Up to v206, the behavior of systemd was the following one:
> > --
> > - the starter sends out a start request of a bench of applications
> (he requests a sequence of unit starts)
>
> If you want to control order of execution yourself,
Hi Hi,
I'm interested in a small extension around systemd passing a set of environment
variables to processes executed (mainly what is happening in:
build_environment(); execute.c)
What are we planning to do:
- We are planning to have some functionality linked against
applications st
Hi all,
I'd like to realize a staged startup with systemd which is mainly about:
- starting up a static tree up to a final service
- the only job of the final service is to kick off the start of an additional
sub tree of units
This kind of startup could be realized simply by adding an additional
Hi Alison,
> -Original Message-
> From: Alison Chaiken [mailto:ali...@she-devel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:17 PM
> To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Subject: Re: Support for staged startup
>
> Marko Hoyer asks:
Hello,
thx for the answer.
> If you do not use "--no-block" to start your second target, first
> target will never finish.
That's something I cannot confirm. If you define the service, which is calling
"systemctl start xxx", as oneshot the service will be in state activating for
exactly the
Hello,
thx for the answer.
> Why not start the final sub-tree units the conventional way, but make
> them all wait, listening on sockets?A final service need not
> contain a 'systemctl start xxx.target' command, as instead it could
> simply write a message to those sockets. Some services cou
Hi,
I ran into a use case where the activation phase of a service takes
significantly longer than the desired watchdog period (Activating: 10-20secs,
Watchdog: 1-5secs).
I found out that the watchdog features starts not before the service is in
state START_POST. This means for my use case that
Hi Umut,
thx for answering
> -Original Message-
> From: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog [mailto:u...@tezduyar.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:51 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Service watchdo
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:00 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Service watchdo
Hello together,
I recently stumbled over cdrom_id opening the device with the O_EXCL flag set,
if it is not currently mounted:
"fd = open(node, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|(is_mounted(node) ? 0 : O_EXCL));"
The effect of this is that automatically mounting a cdrom sometimes results in
"resource busy",
> -Original Message-
> From: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:22 AM
> To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why?
>
> Hello together,
>
> I recently stumbled over cdrom_id opening
> -Original Message-
> From: David Herrmann [mailto:dh.herrm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:31 AM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens device with O_EXCL, why?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Herrmann [mailto:dh.herrm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:57 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Harald Hoyer; Kay Sievers
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] cdrom_id opens devic
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-
> boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:55 PM
> To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading
>
> Hi,
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:11 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog [mailto:u...@tezduyar.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:45 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading
>
> Hi Ma
> -Original Message-
> From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-
> boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Tom Gundersen
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:57 PM
> To: Umut Tezduyar
> Cc: systemd Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading
>
>
> On 16 Dec
> -Original Message-
> From: Ivan Shapovalov [mailto:intelfx...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 3:26 PM
> To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2); Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module load
ls at certain points. I added
some questions inline as well.
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:47 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:05 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module l
> -Original Message-
> From: Lucas De Marchi [mailto:lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:00 PM
> To: Lennart Poettering
> Cc: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2); systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Improving module loading
&
Good morning everyone,
I'm playing around a bit with systemd's socket based activation of
systemd-journald. My intention is to shift back in time the actual startup of
systemd-journald.service to save resources (CPU) for early applications during
startup. The respective socket is activated as u
Hi,
Best regards
Marko Hoyer
Software Group II (ADITG/SW2)
Tel. +49 5121 49 6948
> -Original Message-
> From: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog [mailto:u...@tezduyar.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 10:38 AM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedeskto
> -Original Message-
> From: systemd-devel-bounces+mhoyer=de.adit-jv@lists.freedesktop.org
> [mailto:systemd-devel-bounces+mhoyer=de.adit-jv@lists.freedesktop.org] On
> Behalf Of Umut Tezduyar
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:38 PM
> To: Lennart Poettering
> Cc: Mailing-List system
Hello systemd developers,
I found that systemd automatically tries to load ipv6 and autofs kernel
modules, when they are not compiled in.
Could you give me a hint what is not working, when they are neither provided as
kernel modules nor compiled in?
In case of autofs I found that automount unit
Hi Tony,
best to my experiences, I doubt that suppressing the loading of device units
will speed up systemd that much. There are other major parts that far more
significantly delay the startup (cgroups in some cases, loading the unit set at
startup, executing the generators, and finally loading
Hi Tony,
to the green box and the comment about insmod:
- Did you compile the kernel module or the whole kernel on your own? Maybe you
missed stripping the kernel modules. Unstripped kernel modules can be pretty
large and hence might need a long time to load depending on the storage
connected.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:49 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Impact when not loading ipv6 and auto
> -Original Message-
> From: systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:systemd-devel-
> boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Colin Guthrie
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:54 PM
> To: Peter Lemenkov; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Nee
el] Need advice on daemon's architecture
>
> El 03/11/13 10:42, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) escribió:
>
> > Isn't the classical Linux way an option to?
> > - the daemon does its initialization with the calling thread
> > - once it is done with the initializ
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:42 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: Colin Guthrie; Peter Lemenkov; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Need
> >One more issue I observed is - if I specify Restart=on-failure, if
> > watchdog timer expire, it restart the service. But I can see that it
> > create two processes rather than restarting the process. But if I do
> > systemctl restart Myservice , it kills the previous instance of
> > service
> Just calling service_enter_dead() does not kill any processes.
> As a result, the old process may still be running when the new one is
started.
Thx for the fast response and alternative patch. I tested it in my
environment as well and it works as expected killing the processes
without execut
Hi all,
hope that is the right forum to raise my question.
I'm trying to realize a kind of dynamic mandatory / lazy service scenario using
systemd.
This means in details that services are either mandatory or lazy. Mandatory
services are started first, once all man. services have been loaded, t
43 matches
Mail list logo
