, 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's all not
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
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 Mailing List
Su
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
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)
<mho...@de.adit-jv.com<mailto:mho...@de.adit-jv.com>> wrote:
Hi,
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)
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
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, why do
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
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 an ARM
-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 watchdog feature in state
ACTIVATING
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 watchdog feature in state
ACTIVATING
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
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 time
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 could
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
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:
I'd like to realize a staged
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
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel
-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
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014
-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
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014
-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 Marko,
Thank you very much for your
-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 2014
-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 loading
On Sunday, December 21
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,
Is there
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, if
-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 the device with the O_EXCL flag set
-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?
Hi
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014
-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 device with O_EXCL, why?
Hi
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
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 and
-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 advice on daemon's architecture
-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] Need
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 initialization, it forks off a process that
goes on with the daemons work (the main
-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 autofs kernel
module ...
On Wed
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
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
-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 systemd
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,
38 matches
Mail list logo
