Re: [zones-discuss] Re: Zone in a mounted state ?

2006-09-06 Thread Jeff Victor

Dick Davies wrote:

On 05/09/06, Enda o'Connor - Sun Microsystems Ireland - Software
Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Pierre Klovsjo wrote:

Enda,

You and James gave me the hint's needed with LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
settings, shell settings and the NFS information.


I logged in with an empty username (no extra settings in the shell) 
and issued zlogin -l 'username' epsu84 uptime and i got the wanted 
output back:

1:15pm up 1:06, 0 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.03

How ever, as to the strange behavior with the 'mounted' state of my 
ZONES i have no idea. I will see if i can produce the same fenomena 
again, but later on, as there are testings to be done.


Just out of interest, what strange behaviour are you seeing with
mounted state.


It shouldn't be possible to get a zone into a 'mounted' state (so I
was told when
I hit the same thing a few months back). It's not documented anywhere
and shouldn't
be user visible.


Fortunately, now that Solaris is an OS OS (open-source operating system :-) ) you 
can research for yourself the possible conditions that a zone can be in the 
'mounted' state.


I searched for some of the different states (ready running configured installed) 
and found the #define for ZONE_STATE_STR_MOUNTED.  That led me to the #define 
ZONE_STATE_MOUNTED.  The latter is used in a conditional a few times, but I only 
found one occasion where it can be *supplied* as a state, in 
kernel_state_to_user_state().


According to the inline doc, execution can only get there if the zone's root is 
mounted on $ZONEPATH/lu.



--
Jeff VICTOR  Sun Microsystemsjeff.victor @ sun.com
OS AmbassadorSr. Technical Specialist
Solaris 10 Zones FAQ:http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq
--
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org


Re: [zones-discuss] Re: Zone in a mounted state ?

2006-09-06 Thread Dick Davies

On 06/09/06, Jeff Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


According to the inline doc, execution can only get there if the zone's root is
mounted on $ZONEPATH/lu.


I've never used liveupgrade (is that what 'lu' refers to?) but I saw this when
a package install crapped out. Possibly $ZONEPATH/lu is involved then.

As Enda said, I got around it by running a 'zoneadm -z myzone unmount'.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org


Re: [zones-discuss] Re: Zone in a mounted state ?

2006-09-06 Thread James Carlson
Dick Davies writes:
 On 06/09/06, Jeff Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  According to the inline doc, execution can only get there if the zone's 
  root is
  mounted on $ZONEPATH/lu.
 
 I've never used liveupgrade (is that what 'lu' refers to?)

Yes, originally.

 but I saw this when
 a package install crapped out. Possibly $ZONEPATH/lu is involved then.
 
 As Enda said, I got around it by running a 'zoneadm -z myzone unmount'.

It is indeed internal.  If you see it, then that's a bug.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org


[zones-discuss] ps -ef as non-root in global zone shows *all* processes

2006-09-06 Thread Dick Davies

I could have sworn a 'ps -ef' (as a non-privileged user)
in the global zone only showed processes in the global zone.

As of b46, that's no longer the case.
Is the change intentional?

--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org


Re: [zones-discuss] ps -ef as non-root in global zone shows *all* processes

2006-09-06 Thread Jeff Victor

Dick Davies wrote:

I could have sworn a 'ps -ef' (as a non-privileged user)
in the global zone only showed processes in the global zone.


I have never seen that, starting with pre-release builds of S10.  But I have only 
seen 5 or 6 builds (including production builds) of S10.



As of b46, that's no longer the case.
Is the change intentional?


It is possible that you used a build that had a bug reducing the visibility of 
processes.



--
--
Jeff VICTOR  Sun Microsystemsjeff.victor @ sun.com
OS AmbassadorSr. Technical Specialist
Solaris 10 Zones FAQ:http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq
--
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org