On 10/08/2014 07:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 07.10.14 14:14, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote: > >>> Hence, if a container manager mounts everything properly, then mount_setup() >>> should be a NOP anyway... >> In theory yes, but in fact not having /run mounted as tmpfs is default in >> the docker >> container. I have no strong opinion on whether this is sensible or not, >> however >> I think that systemd can be made more resilient and handle such >> cases. > Sorry, but no. /run should be pre-mounted, and if it isn't we need the > rights to mount it. We will not boot up a system without /run. That's > part of the API for programs, and we will not avoid it. > > Please ask Docker to premount /run. All distros need /run anyway these > days, Debian does, Ubuntu does, Fedora does. > >> Now systemd will try to mount /run on tmpfs, such attempt will fail because >> of >> missing capability and then systemd will just hang. > Well, just sticking the head in the sand won't help. If we don't have > /run mounted, then things will break later on. We cannot ignore that. > > Sorry, > > Lennart > We have a patch for this. In the past docker has bocked/removed the patch because there is no concept of systemd-tmpfs inside a container to pre-populate /run. So images came with content in their /run.
Alex wrote a patch to scan the /run on the image and create the content in a tmpfs /run. I will attempt to push this patch again to docker. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
