diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/systemd.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | open_issues/systemd.mdwn | 3694 |
1 files changed, 3694 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/systemd.mdwn b/open_issues/systemd.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d2506046 --- /dev/null +++ b/open_issues/systemd.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,3694 @@ +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation, +Inc."]] + +[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable +id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this +document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or +any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant +Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license +is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation +License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] + +[[!tag open_issue_porting]] + + * <http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd> + + * <http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html>, + <http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-update.html> + + * <http://lwn.net/Articles/389149/> + +Will need to have something like Linux' +[*cgroups*](http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt;hb=HEAD). +Introduction: [*Ressourcen-Verwaltung mit Control Groups (cgroups)* +(german)](http://www.pro-linux.de/artikel/2/1464/ressourcen-verwaltung-mit-control-groups-cgroups.html), +Daniel Gollub, Stefan Seyfried, 2010-10-14. + +Likely there's also some other porting needed. + + +# Discussion + +This also captures discussion about other init systems, not only systemd. Also +note the additional [[upstart]] page. + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2011-05-19 + + <pinotree> pochu: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.desktop - the + "systemd as dependency" and all the messages in it don't give me a bright + future for gnome on hurd... + <pochu> yeah, I've read the thread + <pochu> it's only a proposal so far... hopefully it'll be rejected, or they + will only accept the interfaces that other OSes can implement... + <pochu> we'll see + <pinotree> you can always help me with kde on hurd, would be nice ;) + <pochu> hehe + <pinotree> pochu: well, even if the depenency is rejected, the whole «don't + give a damn about non-linux and only bless linux for the "gnome os"» is a + bit... worrying attitude + <pochu> yeah... it doesn't come from all the community though + <pochu> I'm sure some people have always thought that way + <tschwinge> Or we could get systemd going? :-) + <pochu> good luck with that :p + <guillem> tschwinge: haha!? :) + <tschwinge> That bad? + <guillem> tschwinge: if you mean by that forking indefinitely then maybe + <guillem> tschwinge: upstream has expressely stated multiple times, no + interest whatsoever in any kind of portability to anything non-Linux + <guillem> or even older Linux versions! + <guillem> to the point of rejecting patches, because they "clutter" the + source code... + <tschwinge> Well, then let's ``just'' implement the Linux interfaces. :-) + <guillem> tschwinge: then you'll be always playing catch up + <guillem> tschwinge: for example several of the Linux-only things upstream + makes heavy use of, are pretty recent Linux-only additions to the kernel, + but equivalents have been present on FreeBSD for years + <tschwinge> Yeah. I'm half-serious, half-joking. + <tschwinge> I haven't looked at the systemd code at all. + <guillem> + https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00447.html + for a list of its dependencies + <guillem> some are just glibc extensions though + <guillem> and some are IMO optional and should be conditionalized, but... + <guillem> pochu: I don't think that attitude is that old, there was a time + when Linux was not used widely, or even that functional, I think it has + been taking strength since the Linux Plumbers Cartel started :) + <guillem> as in one thing is not caring about anything non-Linux, the other + is outright rejecting portability fixes + <guillem> tschwinge: in any case, these "recent" events are "pissing me + off" to the point of having considered several times implementing + portable replacements for some of those Utopia projects, the problem as + always is time though :) + <guillem> tschwinge: and the issue is not only with systemd, upstart's + upstream has the same approach to portability, if you want to port it, + you'll have to maintain a fork + <pochu> let's create our own init system, make it better than anyone else, + and when people start switching to it, let's start using hurd-only APIs + :) + <tschwinge> We already had someone work on that. Like ten years ago. DMD. + Daemon Managing Daemons. <http://directory.fsf.org/project/DMD/> + <guillem> the real problem with that attitude is not the lack of care for + portabilty, the real problem is that these people are pushing for their + stuff all over the stack, and most of the time deprecating their own + stuff after a while when they have rewritten it from scratch, leaving the + burden of maintaining the old stuff to the other ports + <guillem> witness HAL, ConsoleKit, etc etc + <guillem> (anyway enough ranting I guess :) + <tschwinge> Yeah, it's true, though. + <pochu> agreed + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-01-18 + + <braunr> systemd relies on linux specific stuff that is difficult to + implement + <braunr> notably cgroups to isolate the deamons it starts so it knows when + they stopped regardless of their pid + <braunr> just assume you can't use systemd on anything else than linux + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-12 + + <azeem> huh, Lennert Poettering just mentioned the Hurd in his systmd talk + <azeem> well, in the context of you IPC in Unix sucks and kdbus + <azeem> s/you/how/ + <pinotree> QED + <pinotree> what did you expect? :) + <azeem> I didn't quite get it, but he seemed to imply the Hurd was a step + in the right direction over Unix + <azeem> (which is obvious, but it wasn't obvious he had that opinion) + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-13 + + <azeem> so cgroups seems to be most prominent thing the systemd people + think the Hurd lacks + <tschwinge> azeem: In 2010, I came to the same conclusion, + <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/open_issues/systemd.html>. ;-) + <azeem> heh + <tschwinge> I don't think of any show-stopper for implementing that -- just + someone to do it. + <youpi> azeem: which part of cgroups, like being able to kill a cgroup? + <youpi> it shouldn't be very hard to implement what systemd needs + <azeem> probably also the resource allocation etc. + <azeem> the questions are I guess (i) do the cgroups semantics make sense + from our POV and/or do we accept that cgroups is the "standard" now and + (ii) should systemd require concrete implementations or just the concept + in a more abstract sense + <teythoon> being the first non Linux OS that runs systemd would be a nice + showcase of Hurds flexibility + <azeem> maybe upstart is less trouble + <pinotree> azeem: possibly + <azeem> teythoon: can you just include upstart in your GSOC? kthxbye + <pinotree> at least libnih (the library with base utilities and such used + by upstart) required a working file monitor (and the current + implementation kind of exposes a fd) and certain semantics for waitid + <pinotree> libnih/upstart have "just" the issue of being under CLA... + <azeem> pinotree: yeah, true + <azeem> I suggested "startup" as a name for a fork + <pinotree> imho there would be no strict need to fork + <teythoon> azeem: but upstart is a lot less interesting. last time I used + it it wasn't even possible to disable services in a clean way + <pochu> pinotree: is that still so now that Scott works for google? + <pinotree> pochu: yeah, since it's a Canonical CLA, not rally something + tied to a person + <pinotree> (iirc) + <pochu> sure, but scott is the maintainer... + <pochu> shrug + <azeem> nah, scott left upstart + <azeem> AFAIK + <azeem> at least James Hunt gave a talk earlier with Steve Langasek and + introduced himself as the upstart maintainer + <azeem> also I heard in the hallway track that the upstart people are + somewhat interested in BSD/Hurd support as they see it as a selling point + against systemd + <pinotree> pochu: it's just like FSF CLA for GNU projects: even if the + maintainers/contributors change altogether, copyright assignment is still + FSF + <azeem> but their accents were kinda annoying/hard to follow so I didn't + follow their talk closesly to see whether they brought it up + <azeem> pinotree: well, it's not + <pochu> azeem: looking at https://code.launchpad.net/libnih, I'm not sure + libnih has a maintainer anymore... + <azeem> pinotree: first off, you're not signing over the copyright with + their CLA, just giving them the right to relicense + <azeem> pinotree: but more importantaly, the FSF announced in a legally + binding way that they will not take things non-free + <azeem> anyway, I'll talk to the upstart guys about libnih + + +### IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-15 + + <azeem> btw, I talked to vorlon about upstart and the Hurd + <azeem> so the situation with libnih is that it is basically + feature-complete, but still maintained by Scott + <azeem> upstart is leveraging it heavily + <azeem> and Scott was (back in the days) against patches for porting + <azeem> for upstart proper, Steve said he would happily take porting + patches + + +### IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-11-28 + + <azeem> teythoon: did you see they got libnih ported to kfreebsd? + <azeem> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/11/msg00395.html + <azeem> "I haven't started looking into Hurd yet," sounds promising + <teythoon> saw that + <teythoon> i looked at libnih too + <teythoon> wrote a mail about that + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-26 + + < youpi> teythoon: I tend to agree with mbanck + < youpi> although another thing worth considering would be adding something + similar to control groups + < youpi> AIUI, it's one of the features that systemd really requires + < braunr> uhg, cgroups already + < braunr> youpi: where is that discussion ? + < youpi> it was a private mail + < braunr> oh ok + < teythoon> right, so about upstart + < teythoon> to be blunt, I do not like upstart, though my experience with + it is limited and outdated + < braunr> that was quick :) + < braunr> i assume this follows your private discussion with youpi and + mbank ? + < teythoon> I used it on a like three years old ubuntu and back then it + couldn't do stufft hat even sysvinit could do + < teythoon> there was not much discussion, mbank suggested that I could + work on upstart + < teythoon> b/c it might be easier to support than systemd + < teythoon> which might be very well true, then again what's the benefit of + having upstart? I'm really curious, I should perhaps read up on its + features + < pinotree> event-based, etc + < youpi> it is also about avoiding being pushed out just because we don't + support it? + < teythoon> yes, but otoh systemd can do amazing things, the featurelist of + upstart reads rather mondane in comparison + < youpi> I don't really have an opinion over either, apart from portability + of the code + < braunr> teythoon: the system requirements for systemd would take much + time to implement in comparison to what we already have + < braunr> i still have maksym's work on last year gsoc on my list + < braunr> waiting to push in the various libpager related patches first + < teythoon> so you guys think it's worthwile to port upstart? + < braunr> no idea + < braunr> teythoon: on another subject + < azeem_> teythoon: I like systemd more, but the hallway track at Debconf + seemed to imply most people like Upstart better except for the CLA + < azeem_> which I totally forgot to address + < youpi> CLA ? + < azeem_> contributor license agreement + < braunr> since you've now done very good progress, is your work available + in the form of ready-to-test debian packages ? + < teythoon> braunr: it is + < teythoon> braunr: http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/gsoc/heap/debian/ + < braunr> i remember urls in some of your mails + < braunr> ah thanks + < braunr> "cryptobitch" hum :) + < azeem_> in any case, everbody assumed either Upstart or Systemd are way + ahead of systemvinit + < braunr> sysvinit is really ancient :) + < azeem_> apart from the non-event-driven fundamental issue, a lot of + people critized that the failure rate at writing correct init-scripts + appears to be too high + < azeem_> one of the questions brought up was whether it makes sense to + continue to ship/support systemvinit once a switch is made to + systemd/upstart for the Linux archs + < azeem_> systemvinit scripts might bitrot + < azeem_> but anyway, I don't see a switch happen anytime soon + < teythoon> well, did upstart gain the capability of disabling a service + yet? + < azeem_> teythoon: no idea, but apparently: + http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/recommended-way-to-enable-disable-services/20347#20347 + < teythoon> azeem_: then there is hope yet ;) + < azeem_> the main selling point of Upstart is that it shipped in several + LTS releases and is proven technology (and honestly, I don't read a lot + of complaints online about it) + < azeem_> (I don't agree that SystemD is unproven, but that is what the + Upstart guys implied) + < teythoon> am I the only one that thinks that upstart is rather + unimpressive? + * azeem_ doesn't have an opinion on it + < azeem> teythoon: + http://penta.debconf.org/dc13_schedule/events/1027.en.html has slides and + the video + < azeem> teythoon: eh, appears the link to the slides is broken, but they + are here: + http://people.canonical.com/~jhunt/presentations/debconf13/upstart-debconf-2013.pdf + < braunr> teythoon: actually, from the presentation, i'd tend to like + upstart + < braunr> dependency, parallelism and even runlevel compatibility flows + naturally from the event based model + < braunr> sysv compatibility is a great feature + < braunr> it does look simple + < braunr> i admit it's "unimpressive" but do we want an overkill init + system ? + < braunr> teythoon: what makes you not like it ? + < azeem> Lennart critized that upstart doesn't generate events, just + listens to them + < azeem> (which is a feature, not a bug to some) + < braunr> azeem: ah yes, that could be a lack + < azeem> braunr: http://penta.debconf.org/dc13_schedule/events/983.en.html + was the corresponding SystemD talk by Lennart, though he hasn't posted + slides yet I think + < teythoon> braunr: well, last time I used it it was impossible to cleanly + disable a service + < teythoon> also ubuntu makes such big claims about software they develop, + and when you read up on them it turns out that most of the advertised + functionality will be implemented in the near future + < teythoon> then they ship software as early as possible only to say later + that is has proven itself for so many years + < teythoon> and tbh I hate to be the one that helped port upstart to hurd + (and maybe kfreebsd as a byproduct) and later debian choses upstart over + systemd b/c it is available for all debian kernels + < kilobug> teythoon: ubuntu has a tendency to ship software too early when + it's not fully mature/stable, but that doesn't say anything about the + software itself + < pinotree> teythoon: note the same is sometimes done on fedora for young + technologies (eg systemd) + < azeem> teythoon: heh, fair enough + < p2-mate> braunr: I would prefer if my init doesn't use ptrace :P + < teythoon> p2-mate: does upstart use ptrace? + < p2-mate> teythoon: yes + < teythoon> well, then I guess there won't be an upstart for Hurd for some + time, no? + < kilobug> p2-mate: why does it use ptrace for ? + < p2-mate> kilobug: to find out if a daemon forked + < kilobug> hum I see + < azeem> p2-mate: the question is whether there's a Hurdish way to + accomplish the same + < p2-mate> + http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~upstart-devel/upstart/trunk/view/head:/init/job_process.c + < p2-mate> see job_process_trace_new :) + < kilobug> azeem: it doesn't seem too complicated to me to have a way to + get proc notify upstart of forks + < p2-mate> azeem: that's a good question. there is a linuxish way to do + that using cgroups + < azeem> right, there's a blueprint suggesting cgroups for Upstart here: + https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-q-upstart-overcome-ptrace-limitations + < teythoon> yes, someone should create a init system that uses cgroups for + tracking child processes >,< + < teythoon> kilobug: not sure it is that easy. who enforces that proc_child + is used for a new process? isn't it possible to just create a new mach + task that has no ties to the parent process? + < teythoon> azeem: what do you mean by "upstart does not generate events"? + there are "emits X" lines in upstart service descrpitions, surely that + generates event X? + < azeem> I think the critique is that this (and those upstart-foo-bridges) + are bolted on, while SystemD just takes over your systems and "knows" + about them first-hand + < azeem> but as I said, I'm not the expert on this + < teythoon> uh, in order to install upstart one has to remove sysvinit + ("yes i am sure...") and it fails to bring up the network on booting the + machine + < teythoon> also, both systemd and upstart depend on dbus, so no cookie for + us unless that is fixed first, right? + < pinotree> true + < teythoon> well, what do you want me to do for the next four weeks? + < youpi> ideally you could make both upstart and systemd work on hurd-i"86 + < pinotree> both in 4 weeks? + < youpi> so hurd-i386 doesn't become the nasty guy that makes people tend + for one or the other + < youpi> I said "ideally" + < youpi> I don't really have any idea how much work is required by either + of the two + < youpi> I'd tend to think the important thing to implement is something + similar to control groups, so both upstart (which is supposed to use them + someday) and systemd can be happy about it + < teythoon> looks like upstarts functionality depending on ptrace is not + required, but can be enabled on a per service base + < teythoon> so a upstart port that just lacks this might be possible + < teythoon> youpi: the main feature of cgroups is that a process cannot + escape its group, no? i'm not sure how this could be implemented atop of + mach in a secure and robust way + < teythoon> b/c any process can just create mach tasks + < youpi> maybe we need to add a feature in mach itself, yes + < teythoon> ok, implementing cgroups sounds fun, I could do that + < youpi> azeem: are you ok with that direction? + < azeem> well, in general yes; however, AIUI, cgroups is being redesigned + upstream, no? + < youpi> that's why I said "something like cgroups" + < azeem> ah, ok + < youpi> we can do something simple enough to avoid design quesetions, and + that would still be enough for upstart & systemd + < azeem> + (http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign) + btw + < braunr> p2-mate: upstart uses ptrace ? + < p2-mate> yes + < youpi> teythoon: and making a real survey of what needs to be fixed for + upstart & systemd + < p2-mate> see my link posted earlier + < braunr> ah already answered + < braunr> grmbl + < braunr> it's a simple alternative to cgroups though + < braunr> teythoon: dbus isn't a proble + < braunr> problem + < braunr> it's not that hard to fix + < youpi> well, it hasn't been fixed for a long time now :) + < braunr> we're being slow, that's all + < braunr> and interested by other things + < gg0> 12:58 < teythoon> btw, who is this heroxbd fellow and why has he + suddenly taken interest in so many debian gsoc projects? + < gg0> http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2013/05/msg00133.html + < gg0> i notice nobody mentioned openrc + < pinotree> he's the debian student working on integrating openrc + < gg0> pinotree: no, the student is Bill Wang, Benda as he says is a + co-mentor + https://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects#OpenRC_init_system_in_Debian + < pinotree> whatever, it's still the openrc gsoc + < azeem> well, they wanted to look at it WRT the Hurd, did they follow-up + on this? + < gg0> btw wouldn't having openrc on hurd be interesting too? + < pinotree> imho not really + < gg0> no idea whether Bill is also trying to figure out what to do, + probably not + < azeem> somebody could ping that thread you mentioned above to see whether + they looked at the Hurd and/or need help/advice + < gg0> azeem: yeah somebody who could provide such help/advice. like.. you? + for instance + * gg0 can just paste urls + < azeem> they should just follow-up on-list + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-28 + + <teythoon> anyone knows a user of cgroups that is not systemd? so far I + found libcg, that looks like a promising first target to port first, + though not surprisingly it is also somewhat linux specific + <taylanub> teythoon: OpenRC optionally uses cgroups IIRC. + <taylanub> Not mandatory because unlike systemd it actually tries (at all) + to be portable. + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-02 + + <teythoon> braunr: I plan to patch gnumach so that the mach tasks keep a + reference to the task that created them and to make that information + available + <teythoon> braunr: is such a change acceptable? + <braunr> teythoon: what for ? + <teythoon> braunr: well, the parent relation is currently only implemented + in the Hurd, but w/o this information tracked by the kernel I don't see + how I can prevent malicious/misbehaving applications to break out of + cgroups + <teythoon> also I think this will enable us to fix the issue with tracking + which tasks belong to which subhurd in the long term + <braunr> ah cgroups + <braunr> yes cgroups should partly be implemented in the kernel ... + <braunr> teythoon: that doesn't surprise me + <braunr> i mean, i think it's ok + <braunr> the kernel should implement tasks and threads as closely as the + hurd (or a unix-like system) needs it + <teythoon> braunr: ok, cool + <teythoon> braunr: I made some rather small and straight forward changes to + gnumach, but it isn't doing what I thought it would do :/ + <teythoon> braunr: http://paste.debian.net/33717/ + <braunr> you added a field to task_basic_info + <braunr> thereby breaking the ABI + <teythoon> braunr: my small test program says: my task port is 1(pid 13) + created by task -527895648; my parent task is 31(pid 1) + <teythoon> braunr: no, it is not. I appended a field and these structures + are designed to be extendable + <braunr> hm + <braunr> ok + <braunr> although i'm not so sure + <braunr> there are macros defining the info size, depending on what you ask + <braunr> you may as well get garbage + <braunr> have you checked that ? + <teythoon> i initialized my struct to zero before calling mach + <braunr> teythoon: can you put some hardcoded value, just to make sure data + is correctly exported ? + <teythoon> braunr: right, good idea + <teythoon> braunr: my task port is 1(pid 13) created by task 3; my parent + task is 31(pid 1) -- so yes, hardcoding 3 works + <braunr> ok + <teythoon> braunr: also I gathered evidence that the convert_task_to_port + thing works, b/c first I did not have the task_reference call just before + that so the reference count was lowered (convert... consumes a reference) + and the parent task was destroyed + <teythoon> braunr: I must admit I'm a little lost. I tried to return a + reference to task rather than task->parent_task, but that didn't work + either + <teythoon> braunr: I feel like I'm missing something here + <teythoon> maybe I should get aquainted with the kernel debugger + <teythoon> err, the kernel debugger is not accepting any symbol names, even + though the binary is not stripped o_O + <teythoon> err, neither the kdb nor gdb attached to qemu translates + addresses to symbols, gdb at least translates symbols to addresses when + setting break points + <teythoon> how did anyone ever debug a kernel problem under these + conditions? + <braunr> teythoon: i'll have a look at it when i have some time + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-03 + + <teythoon> :/ I believe the startup_notify interface is ill designed... an + translator can defer the system shutdown indefinitely + <braunr> it can + <teythoon> that's bad + <braunr> yes + <braunr> the hurd has a general tendency to trust its "no mutual trust + required" principle + <braunr> to rely on it a bit too much + <teythoon> well, at least it's a privileged operation to request this kind + of notification, no? + <braunr> why ? + <braunr> teythoon: it normally is used mostly by privileged servers + <braunr> but i don't think there is any check on the recipient + <teythoon> braunr: b/c getting the port to /hurd/init is done via + proc_getmsgport + <braunr> teythoon: ? + <teythoon> braunr: well, in order to get the notifications one needs the + msgport of /hurd/init and getting that requires root privileges + <braunr> teythoon: oh ok then + <braunr> teythoon: what's bad with it then ? + <teythoon> braunr: even if those translators are somewhat trusted, they can + (and do) contain bugs and stall the shutdown + <teythoon> I think this even happened to me once, I think it was the pfinet + translator + <braunr> teythoon: how do you want it to behave instead ? + <teythoon> braunr: well, /hurd/init notifies the processes sequentially, + that seems suboptimal, better to send async notifications to all of them + and then to collect all the answers + <teythoon> braunr: if one fails to answer within a rather large time frame + (say 5 minutes) shutdown anyway + <braunr> i agree with async notifications but + <braunr> i don't agree with the timeout + <teythoon> for reference, a (voluntary) timeout of 1 minute is hardcoded in + /hurd/init + <braunr> the timeout should be a parameter + <braunr> it's common on large machines to have looong shutdown delays + <teythoon> of the notification? + <braunr> the answer means "ok i'm done you can shutdown" + <braunr> well this can take long + <braunr> most often, administrators simply prefer to trust their program is + ok and won't take longer than it needs to, even if it's long + <teythoon> and not answering at all causes the shutdown / reboot to fail + making the system hang + <braunr> i know + <teythoon> in a state where it is not easily reached if you do not have + access to it + <braunr> but since it only concerns essential servers, it should befine + <braunr> essential servers are expected to behave well + <teythoon> it concerns servers that have requested a shutdown notification + <braunr> ok so no essential but system servers + <teythoon> essential servers are only exec, proc, / + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> the same applies + <pinotree> init and auth too, no? + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> you expect root not to hang himself + <teythoon> I do expect all software to contain bugs + <braunr> yes but you also expect them to provide a minimum level of + reliability + <braunr> otherwise you can just throw it all away + <teythoon> no, not really + <braunr> well + <teythoon> I know, that's my dilemma basically ;) + <braunr> if you don't trust your file system, you make frequent backups + <braunr> if you don't trust your shutdown code, you're ready to pull the + plug manually + <braunr> (or set a watchdog or whatever) + <braunr> what i mean is + <braunr> we should NEVER interfere with a program that is actually doing + its job just because it seems too long + <braunr> timeouts are almost never the best solution + <braunr> they're used only when necessary + <braunr> e.g. across networks + <braunr> it's much much much worse to interrupt a proper shutdown process + because it "seems too long" than just trust it behaves well 99999%%%% of + the time + <braunr> in particular because this case deals with proper data flushing, + which is an extremely important use case + <teythoon> it's hard/theoretically impossible to distinguish between taking + long and doing nothing + <braunr> it's impossible + <braunr> agreed + <braunr> => trust + <braunr> if you don't trust, you run real time stuff + <braunr> and you don't flush data on disk + <teythoon> ^^ + <braunr> (which makes a lot of computer uses impossible as well) + <teythoon> there are only 2 people I trust, and the other one is not + /hurd/pfinet + <braunr> if this shutdown procedure is confined to the TCB, it's fine to + trust it goes well + <teythoon> tcb? + <braunr> trusted computing base + <braunr> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing_base + * teythoon shudders + <teythoon> "trust" is used way to much these days + <teythoon> and I do not like the linux 2.0 ip stack to be part of our TCB + <braunr> basically, on a multiserver system like the hurd, the tcb is every + server on the path to getting a service done from a client + <braunr> then make it not request to be notified + <braunr> or make two classes of notifications + <braunr> because unprivileged file systems should be notified too + <teythoon> indeed + <teythoon> by the way, we should have a hurdish libnotify or something for + this kind of notifications + <braunr> but in any case, it should really be policy + <braunr> we should ... :) + <teythoon> ^^ + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-04 + + <teythoon> braunr: btw, I now believe that no server that requested + shutdown notifications can stall the shutdown for more than 1 minute + *unless* its message queue is full + <teythoon> so any fs should better sync within that timeframe + <braunr> where is this 1 min defined ? + <teythoon> init/init.c search for 60000 + <braunr> ew + <teythoon> did I just find the fs corruption bug everyone was looking for? + <braunr> no + <braunr> what corruption bug ? + <teythoon> not sure, I thought there was still some issues left with + unclean filesystems every now and then + <teythoon> *causing + <braunr> yes but we know the reasons + <teythoon> ah + <braunr> involving some of the funniest names i've seen in computer + terminology : + <braunr> writeback causing "message floods", which in turn create "thread + storms" in the servers receiving them + <teythoon> ^^ it's usually the other way around, storms causing floods >,, + <braunr> teythoon: :) + <braunr> let's say it's a bottom-up approach + <teythoon> then the fix is easy, compile mach with -DMIGRATING_THREADS :) + <braunr> teythoon: what ? + <teythoon> well, that would solve the flood/storm issue, no? + <braunr> no + <braunr> the real solution is proper throttling + <braunr> which can stem from synchronous rpc (which is the real property we + want from migrating threads) + <braunr> but the mach writeback interface is async + <braunr> :p + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-05 + + <braunr> teythoon: oh right, forgot about your port issue + <teythoon> don't worry, I figured by now that this must be a pointer + <teythoon> and I'm probably missing some magic that transforms this into a + name for the receiver + <teythoon> (though I "found" this function by looking at the mig + transformation for ports) + <braunr> i was wondering why you called the convert function manually + <braunr> instead of simply returning the task + <braunr> and let mig do the magic + <teythoon> b/c then I would have to add another ipc call, no? + <braunr> let me see the basic info call again + <braunr> my problem with this code is that it doesn't take into account the + ipc space of the current task + <braunr> which means you probably really return the ipc port + <braunr> the internal kernel address of the struct + <braunr> indeed, ipc_port_t convert_task_to_port(task) + <braunr> i'd personally make a new rpc instead of adding it to basic info + <braunr> basic info doesn't create rights + <braunr> what you want to achieve does + <braunr> you may want to make it a special port + <braunr> i.e. a port created at task creation time + <teythoon> y? + <braunr> it also means you need to handle task destruction and reparent + <teythoon> yes, I thought about that + <braunr> see + http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/Task-Special-Ports.html#Task-Special-Ports + <braunr> for now you may simply turn the right into a dead name when the + parent dies + <braunr> although adding a call and letting mig do it is simpler + <braunr> mig handles reference counting, users just need to task_deallocate + once done + <teythoon> o_O mig does reference counting of port rights? + <braunr> mig/mach_msg + <teythoon> is there anything it *doesn't* do? + <braunr> i told you, it's a very complicated messaging interface + <braunr> coffee ? + <braunr> fast ? + <teythoon> ^^ + <braunr> mig knows about copy_send/move_send/etc... + <braunr> so even if it doesn't do reference counting explicitely, it does + take care of that + <teythoon> true + <braunr> in addition, the magic conversions are intended to both translate + names into actual structs, and add a temporary reference at the same time + <braunr> teythoon: everything clear now ? :) + <teythoon> braunr: no, especially not why you suggested to create a special + port. but this will have to wait for tomorrow ;) + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-06 + + <vorlon> teythoon: hi there + <vorlon> so I've been following your blog entries about cgroups on + hurd... very impressive :) + <vorlon> but I think there's a misunderstanding about upstart and + cgroups... your "conjecture" in + https://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/posts/what-will-i-do-next-cgroupfs-o/ is + incorrect + <vorlon> cgroups does not give us the interfaces that upstart uses to + define service readiness; adding support for cgroups is interesting to + upstart for purposes of resource partitioning, but there's no way to + replace ptrace with cgroups for what we're doing + <teythoon> vorlon: hi and thanks for the fish :) + <teythoon> vorlon: what is it exactly that upstart is doing with ptrace + then? + <teythoon> .,oO( your nick makes me suspicious for some reason... ;) + <teythoon> service readiness, what does that mean exactly? + <vorlon> teythoon: so upstart uses ptrace primarily for determining service + readiness. The idea is that traditionally, you know an init script is + "done" when it returns control to the parent process, which happens when + the service process has backgrounded/daemonized; this happens when the + parent process exits + <vorlon> in practice, however, many daemons do this badly + <vorlon> so upstart tries to compensate, by not just detecting that the + parent process has exited, but that the subprocess has exited + <vorlon> (for the case where the upstart job declares 'expect daemon') + <vorlon> cgroups, TTBOMK, will let you ask "what processes are part of this + group" and possibly even "what process is the leader for this group", but + doesn't really give you a way to detect "the lead process for this group + has changed twice" + <vorlon> now, it's *better* in an upstart/systemd world for services to + *not* daemonize and instead stay running in the foreground, but then + there's the question of how you know the service is "ready" before moving + on to starting other services that depend on it + <vorlon> systemd's answer to this is socket-based activation, which we + don't really endorse for upstart for a variety of reasons + <teythoon> hm, okay + <teythoon> so upstart does this only if expect daemon is declared in the + service description? + <vorlon> (in part because I've seen security issues when playing with the + systemd implementation on Fedora, which Lennart assures me are + corner-cases specific to cups, but I haven't had a chance to test yet + whether he's right) + <teythoon> and it is not used to track children, but only to observe the + daemonizing process? + <vorlon> yes + <teythoon> and it then detaches from the processes? + <vorlon> yes + <vorlon> once it knows the service is "ready", upstart doesn't care about + tracking it; it'll receive SIGCHLD when the lead process dies, and that's + all it needs to know + <teythoon> ok, so I misunderstood the purpose of the ptracing, thanks for + clarifying this + <vorlon> my pleasure :) + <vorlon> I realize that doesn't really help with the problem of hurd not + having ptrace + <teythoon> no, but thanks anyway + <vorlon> fwiw, the alternative upstart recommends for detecting service + readiness is for the process to raise SIGSTOP when it's ready + <vorlon> doesn't require ptracing, doesn't require socket-based activation + definitions; does require the service to run in a different mode than + usual where it will raise the signal at the correct time + <teythoon> right, but that requires patching it, same as the socket + activation stuff of systemd + <vorlon> (this is upstart's 'expect stop') + <vorlon> yes + <vorlon> though at DebConf, there were some evil ideas floating around + about doing this with an LD_PRELOAD or similar ;) + <vorlon> (overriding 'daemonize') + <vorlon> er, 'daemon()' + <teythoon> ^^ + <vorlon> and hey, what's suspicious about my /nick? vorlons are always + trustworthy + <vorlon> ;) + <teythoon> sure they are + <teythoon> but could this functionality be reasonably #ifdef'ed out for a + proof of concept port? + <vorlon> hmm, you would need to implement some kind of replacement... if + you added cgroups support to upstart as an alternative + <vorlon> that could work + <vorlon> i.e., you would need upstart to know when the service has exited; + if you aren't using ptrace, you don't know the "lead pid" to watch for, + so you need some other mechanism --> cgroups + <vorlon> and even then, what do you do for a service like openssh, which + explicitly wants to leave child processes behind when it restarts? + <teythoon> right... + <vorlon> oh, I was hoping you knew the answer to this question ;) Since + AFAICS, openssh has no native support for cgroups + <teythoon> >,< I don't, but I'll think about what you've said... gotta go, + catch what's left of the summer ;) + <teythoon> fwiw I consider fork/exec/the whole daemonizing stuff fubar... + <teythoon> see you around :) + <vorlon> later :) + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-07 + + <teythoon> vorlon: I thought about upstarts use of ptrace for observing the + daemonizing process and getting hold of the child + <teythoon> vorlon: what if cgroup(f)s would guarantee that the order of + processes listed in x/tasks is the same they were added in? + <teythoon> vorlon: that way, the first process in the list would be the + daemonized child after the original process died, no? + <vorlon> teythoon: that doesn't tell you how many times the "lead" process + has changed, however + <vorlon> you need synchronous notifications of the forks in order to know + that, which currently we only get via ptrace + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-08 + + <teythoon> vorlon: ok, but why do the notifications have to be synchronous? + does that imply that the processes need to be stopped until upstart does + something? + <vorlon> teythoon: well, s/synchronous/reliable/ + <vorlon> you're right that it doesn't need to be synchronous; but it can't + just be upstart polling the status of the cgroup + <vorlon> because processes may have come and gone in the meantime + <teythoon> vorlon: ok, cool, b/c the notifications of process changes I'm + hoping to introduce into the proc server for my cgroupfs do carry exactly + this kind of information + <vorlon> cool + <vorlon> are you discussing an API for this with the Linux cgroups + maintainers? + <teythoon> otoh it would be somewhat "interesting" to get upstart to use + this b/c of the way the mach message handling is usually implemented + <vorlon> :) + <teythoon> no, I meant in order for me to be able to implement cgroupfs I + had to create these kind of notifications, it's not an addition to the + cgroups api + <teythoon> is upstart multithreaded? + <vorlon> no + <vorlon> threads are evil ;) + <teythoon> ^^ I mostly agree + <vorlon> it uses a very nice event loop, leveraging signalfd among other + things + <teythoon> uh oh, signalfd sounds rather Linuxish + <pinotree> it is + <vorlon> I think xnox mentioned when he was investigating it that kfreebsd + now also supports it + <vorlon> but yeah, AFAIK it's not POSIX + <pinotree> it isn't, yes + <vorlon> but it darn well should be + <vorlon> :) + <vorlon> it's the best improvement to signal handling in a long time + <teythoon> systemd also uses signalfd + <teythoon> umm, it seems I was wrong about Hurd not having ptrace, the wiki + suggests that we do have it + <pinotree> FSVO "have" + <teythoon> ^^ + <xnox> vorlon: teythoon: so ok kFreeBSD/FreeBSD ideally I'd be using + EVFILT_PROC from kevent which allows to receive events & track: exit, + fork, exec, track (follow across fork) + <xnox> upstart also uses waitid() + <xnox> so a ptrace/waitid should be sufficient to track processes, if Hurd + has them. + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-09 + + <youpi> teythoon: yes, the shutdown notifications do stall the process + <youpi> but no more than a minute, or so + <youpi> teythoon: btw, did you end up understanding the odd thing in + fshelp_start_translator_long? + <youpi> I haven't had the time to have a look + <teythoon> youpi: what odd thing? the thing about being implemented by hand + instead of using the mig stub? + <youpi> the thing about the port being passed twice + <youpi> XXX this looks wrong to me, please have a look + <youpi> in the mach_port_request_notification call + <teythoon> ah, that was alright, yes + <youpi> ok + <youpi> so I can drop it from my TODO :) + <teythoon> this is done on the control port so that a translator is + notified if the "parent" translator dies + <teythoon> was that in fshelp_start_translator_long though? I thought that + was somewhere else + <youpi> that's what the patch file says + <youpi> +++ b/libfshelp/start-translator-long.c + <youpi> @@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ fshelp_start_translator_long (fshelp_open_fn_t + underlying_open_fn, + <youpi> + /* XXX this looks wrong to me, bootstrap is used twice as + argument... */ + <youpi> bootstrap, + MACH_NOTIFY_NO_SENDERS, 0, + <teythoon> right + <teythoon> I remember that when I got a better grip of the idea of + notifications I figured that this was indeed okay + <teythoon> I'll have a quick look though + <youpi> ok + <teythoon> ah, I remember, this notifies the parent translator if the child + dies, right + <teythoon> and it is a NO_SENDERS notification, so it is perfectly valid to + use the same port twice, as we only hold a receive right + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-10 + + <teythoon> braunr: are pthreads mapped 1:1 to mach threads? + <braunr> teythoon: yes + <teythoon> I'm reading the Linux cgroups "documentation" and it talks about + tasks (Linux threads) and thread group IDs (Linux processes) and I'm + wondering how to map this accurately onto Hurd concepts... + <teythoon> apparently on Linux there are PIDs/TIDs that can be used more or + less interchangeably from userspace applications + <teythoon> the Linux kernel however knows only PIDs, and each thread has + its own, and those threads belonging to the same (userspace) PID have the + same thread group id + <teythoon> aiui on Mach threads belong to a Mach task, and there is no + global unique identifier exposed for threads, right? + <teythoon> braunr: ^ + <tschwinge> teythoon: There is its thread port, which in combination with + its task port should make it unique? (I might be missing context.) + <tschwinge> Eh, no. The task port's name will only locally be unique. + * tschwinge confused himself. + <teythoon> tschwinge, braunr: well, the proc server could of course create + TIDs for threads the same way it creates PIDs for tasks, but that should + probably wait until this is really needed + <teythoon> for the most part, the tasks and cgroup.procs files contain the + same information on Linux, and not differentiating between the two just + means that cgroupfs is not able to put threads into cgroups, just + processes + <teythoon> that might be enough for now + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-11 + + <teythoon> ugh, some of the half-backed Linux interfaces will be a real + pain in the ass to support + <teythoon> they do stuff like write(2)ing file descriptors encoded as + decimal numbers for notifications :-/ + <braunr> teythoon: for cgroup ? + <teythoon> braunr: yes, they have this eventfd based notification mechanism + <teythoon> braunr: but I fear that this is a more general problem + <braunr> do we need eventfd ? + <teythoon> I mean passing FDs around is okay, we can do this just fine with + ports too, but encoding numbers as an ascii string and passing that + around is just not a nice interface + <braunr> so what ? + <teythoon> it's not a designed interface, it's one people came up with b/c + it was easy to implement + <braunr> if it's meant for compatibility, that's ok + <teythoon> how would you implement this then? as a special case in the + write(2) implementation in the libc? that sounds horrible but I do hardly + see another way + <teythoon> ok, some more context: the cgroup documentation says + <teythoon> write "<event_fd> <control_fd> <args>" to cgroup.event_control. + <teythoon> where event_fd is the eventfd the notification should be sent to + <pinotree> theorically they could have used sendmsg + a custom payload + <teythoon> control_fd is an fd to the pseudo file one wants notifications + for + <teythoon> yes, they could have, that would have been nicer to implement + <teythoon> but this... + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-12 + + <teythoon> ugh, gnumachs build system drives me crazy %-/ + <pinotree> oh there's worse than that + <teythoon> I added a new .defs file, did as Makerules.mig.am told me to do, + but it still does not create the stubs I need + <braunr> teythoon: gnumach doesn't + <braunr> teythoon: glibc does + <braunr> well, gnumach only creates the stubs it needs + <braunr> teythoon: you should perhaps simply use gnumach.defs + <teythoon> braunr: sure it does, e.g. vm/memory_object_default.user.c + <braunr> teythoon: what are you trying to add ? + <teythoon> braunr: I was trying to add a notification mechanism for new + tasks + <teythoon> b/c now the proc server has to query all task ports to discover + newly created tasks, this seems wasteful + <teythoon> also if the proc server could be notified on task creation, the + parent task is still around, so the notification can carry a reference to + it + <teythoon> that way gnumach wouldn't have to track the relationship, which + would create all kind of interesting questions, like whether tasks would + have to be reparented if the parent dies + <braunr> teythoon: notifications aren't that simple either + <teythoon> y not? + <braunr> 1/ who is permitted to receive them + <braunr> 2/ should we contain them to hurd systems ? (e.g. should a subhurd + receive notifications concerning tasks in other hurd systems ?) + <teythoon> that's easy imho. 1/ a single process that has a host_priv + handle is able to register for the notifications once + <braunr> what are the requirements so cgroups work as expected concerning + tasks ? + <braunr> teythoon: a single ? + <teythoon> i.e. the first proc server that starts + <braunr> then how will subhurd proc servers work ? + <teythoon> 2/ subhurds get the notifications from the first proc server, + and only those that are "for them" + <braunr> ok + <braunr> i tend to agree + <braunr> this removes the ability to debug the main hurd from a subhurd + <teythoon> this way the subhurds proc server doesn't even have to have the + host_priv porsts + <teythoon> yes, but I see that as a feature tbh + <braunr> me too + <braunr> and we can still debug the subhurd from the main + <teythoon> it still works the other way around, so it's still... + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> what would you include in the notification ? + <teythoon> a reference to the new task (proc needs that anyway) adn one to + the parent task (so proc knows what the parent process is and/or for + which subhurd it is) + <braunr> ok + <braunr> 17:21 < braunr> what are the requirements so cgroups work as + expected concerning tasks ? + <braunr> IOW, why is the parental relation needed ? + <braunr> (i don't know much about the details of cgroup) + <teythoon> well, currently we rely on proc_child to build this relation + <teythoon> but any task can use task_create w/o proc_child + <teythoon> until one claims a newly created task with proc_child, its + parent is pid 1 + <braunr> that's about the hurd + <braunr> i'm rather asking about cgroups + <teythoon> ah + <teythoon> the child process has to end up in the same cgroup as the parent + <braunr> does a cgroup include its own pid namespace ? + <teythoon> not quite sure what you mean, but I'd say no + <teythoon> do you mean pid namespace as in the Linux sense of that phrase? + <teythoon> cgroups group processes(threads) into groups + <teythoon> on Linux, you can then attach controllers to that, so that + e.g. scheduling decisions or resource restrictions can be applied to + groups + <teythoon> braunr: http://paste.debian.net/38950/ + <braunr> teythoon: ok so a cgroup is merely a group of processes supervised + by a controller + <braunr> for resource accounting/scheudling + <braunr> teythoon: where does dev_pager.c do the same ? + <teythoon> braunr: yes. w/o such controllers cgroups can still be used for + subprocess tracking + <teythoon> braunr: well, dev_pager.c uses mig generated stubs from + memory_object_reply.defs + <braunr> ah memory_object_reply ok + <braunr> teythoon: have you tried adding it to EXTRA_DIST ? + <braunr> although i don't expect it will change much + <braunr> teythoon: hum, you're not actually creating client stubs + <braunr> create a kern/task_notify.cli file + <braunr> as it's done with device/memory_object_reply.cli + <braunr> see #define KERNEL_USER 1 + <teythoon> braunr: right, thanks :) + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-13 + + <teythoon> hm, my notification system for newly created tasks kinda works + <teythoon> as in I get notified when a new task is created + <teythoon> but the ports for the new task and the parent that are carried + in the notification are both MACH_PORT_DEAD + <teythoon> do I have to add a reference manually before sending it? + <teythoon> that would make sense, the mig magic transformation function for + task_t consumes a reference iirc + <braunr> ah yes + <braunr> that reference counting stuff is some hell + <teythoon> braunr: ah, there's more though, the mig transformations are + only done in the server stub, not in the client, so I still have to + convert_task_to_port myself afaics + <teythoon> awesome, it works :) + <braunr> :) + <teythoon> ugh, the proc_child stuff is embedded deep into libc and signal + handling stuff... + <teythoon> "improving" the child_proc stuff with my shiny new notifications + wrecks havoc on the system + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-03 + + <gg0> openrc on debian + https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openrc&suite=experimental + <braunr> gg0: ah nice + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-11 + + <gnu_srs1> teythoon: is the Hurd boot now fully init compatible? I would + like to try to boot with a ported openrc in a sandbox kvm:P + + +### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-12 + + <teythoon> gnu_srs1: yes, go ahead + <teythoon> gnu_srs1: you'll have to switch to sysvinit first + <teythoon> for that, you need patched sysvinit packages + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: do you mean the parches in #721917? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, mostly, but there is one final patch missing + <gg0> uploading patched sysvinit to debian-ports? (or braunr's or + teythoon's repos) + <teythoon> gg0, gnu_srs: they are actually here + http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/gsoc/heap/debian/ but outdated + <gnu_srs> teythoon: if the sysvinit patches are outdated, can you update + them please? and provide a package for upload to -ports (as gg0 proposed) + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i will + <gnu_srs> tks:) + + +### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-13 + + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i updated the sysvinit patches + <teythoon> gnu_srs: for your convenience, here are packages: + http://darnassus.sceen.net/~teythoon/heap/sysvinit/ + <teythoon> gnu_srs: you have to install the sysvinit-core package first, + then the others + <teythoon> to switch to sysvinit, do update-alternatives --config runsystem + and select runsystem.sysv + <teythoon> then, do reboot-hurd and hope for the best ;) + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: thanks, will try soon. Are you submitting the updated + patches to #721917 too? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i already did + <gnu_srs> good;-) + <gnu_srs> teythoon: rebooted with sysv:http://paste.debian.net/75925/ + <teythoon> gnu_srs: please, whenever you run into a problem, give more + context + <teythoon> which file are you talking about ? + <teythoon> also, as the postinst script advised you, you need to use + {halt,reboot}-hurd *whenever* you switch the runsystem + <teythoon> not doing so wont do any harm, but it wont work + <teythoon> shutdown: /run/initctl: No such file or directory <-- that's + what happens if you run reboot (=reboot-sysv) w/o sysvinit being run + <teythoon> if you don't get a getty on the console, check /etc/inittab + <gnu_srs> I did note see a message from any posinst script about + {halt,reboot}-hurd, only LC* related messages + <gnu_srs> A I missed it: You must use halt-hurd or reboot-hurd to halt or + reboot the + <gnu_srs> system whenever you change the runsystem. + <gnu_srs> I don't see anything suspicious in /etc/inittab, + eg. 1:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty1 is there + <teythoon> 7:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 console + <teythoon> then, you'll get a getty on the mach console, even if the + hurd-console does not start + <gnu_srs> teythoon: with 7:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 console in + /etc/inittab I get a (mach) console. + <gnu_srs> never seen that mentioned anywhere + <gnu_srs> anyway, the image is now booted with sysvinit. next to try will + be openrc:P + <teythoon> gnu_srs: you haven't heard of the inittab entry for the mach + console before b/c the inittab was not used before on the hurd + <teythoon> i should probably write that down in the wiki somewhere... + <youpi> shouldn't the upgrade of the sysvinit package do it too? + <youpi> (does it at least install a correct version on newer installs?) + <teythoon> it probably should / i'm not sure + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-13 + + <teythoon> gnu_srs: have you ported openrc already ? + <gnu_srs> I made it build (with temporary workarounds for PATH_MAX) but + need to change at least one file to be hurd-specific before trying to + boot + <teythoon> cool :) + <gg0> i guess not much different from http://paste.debian.net/plain/75893/ + <gg0> (i didn't say it sucks but one can find it out by taking a look) + <gnu_srs> gg0: Have you talked to zigo in #openrc?. He has partial patches + (submitted to the debian repo), you do and me too. + <gnu_srs> Maybe we should align our work. + <gnu_srs> The file to make Hurd-specific is: init.sh.GNU (you start with + copy of the Linux version, I start from a copy of the BSD version). + <gnu_srs> BTW: I don't think fstabinfo is available for GNU/Hurd! + <gnu_srs> gg0: Sorry, fstabinfo and moutinfo are parts of openrc, my bad:-D + <gnu_srs> mountinfo* + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-15 + + <gnu_srs> Hi, is these some simple way to find out the sequence of commands + executed during boot: + <gnu_srs> current using runsystem.gnu and with sysv-rc using runsystem.sysv + <gnu_srs> I need to edit on file of OpenRC before trying to boot with + it. (mainly mounting /run/*) + <gnu_srs> Is mount functional or is settrans .needed? + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-16 + + <ArneBab> gnu_srs: you are adding OpenRC? cool! + <gnu_srs> ArneBab: Working on it, will try booting when my questions here + have been answered ;-) + <teythoon> gnu_srs: mount is functional enough to boot Debian/Hurd using + sysvinit + <teythoon> gnu_srs: you could add "set -x" to runsystem.*, or add "bash" to + just drop into a shell and examine the environment interactively + <gnu_srs> teythoon: Hi, is mount a wrapper on top of settrans ...? + <teythoon> yes + <gnu_srs> how to log the boot sequence, when booting the mach console is + cleared when the hurd console starts? + <teythoon> you could just disable the hurd console + <gnu_srs> and the kvm console does not have scrolling functionality + <teythoon> it's actually the mach console that lacks this + <gnu_srs> copying manually is cumbersome, even if all is readable + <teythoon> but as a workaround you can use kvm .... -curses and use xterms + backlog + <teythoon> and c&p works then :) + <gnu_srs> tks, I'll try with that:P + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-17 + + <gnu_srs> BTW: zigo successfully booted openrc on Hurd, I haven't tried + yet,, you know things coming in between. He used my patches to create + updated ones:) + <gnu_srs> that version is now in experimental (I still have to operate away + all those PATH_MAX issues, and fins at least one sh file). + <teythoon> :/ + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-21 + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: I don't get a scrollable output when using -curses in + kvm, to be able to see all startup messages. Any other ideas? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: are you sure ? i just tested this, and it works nicely + for me + <teythoon> gnu_srs: that's how i created all the "screenshots" for my blog + posts + <gnu_srs> teythoon: kvm -m 1024 -net nic,model=rtl8139 -net + user,hostfwd=tcp::5564-:22 -curses -hda debian-hurd-20140115.img + <teythoon> ah, my bad + <teythoon> gnu_srs: try -nographic + <teythoon> oh, and maybe you need to add console=com0 to the gnumach + command line + <teythoon> b/c with -nographic, the first serial port is connected to qemus + stdio + <teythoon> sorry, i mixed this up + <gnu_srs> and how to add console=com0 to the qemu start oprtions? -kernel + and -append are Linux only + <teythoon> # grep console /etc/default/grub + <teythoon> GRUB_CMDLINE_GNUMACH="console=com0 --crash-debug" + <teythoon> and if you want grub on the serial port: + <teythoon> # grep serial /etc/default/grub + <teythoon> GRUB_TERMINAL=serial + <teythoon> GRUB_SERIAL_COMMAND="serial --speed=9600 --unit=0 --word=8 + --parity=no --stop=1" + <gnu_srs> teythoon: with -nographic I don't get any output at all? + <teythoon> did you run update-grub ? + <gnu_srs> aha, will do + <gnu_srs> still no scrollbar with gnome-terminal, will try with xterm and + rxvt + <gnu_srs> it works: with rxvt, tks:-D + <teythoon> good :) + <teythoon> i found -nographic to be quite handy + <gnu_srs> in /etc/default/grub: GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet" and + GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="" #GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID=true + <gnu_srs> linux configuration parameters in a gnumach boot setup? + <teythoon> those won't be used + <teythoon> unless the grub scripts find a linux kernel in /boot + <teythoon> it's just the stock debian configuration file + <gnu_srs> nevertheless:-( + <teythoon> what ? + <gnu_srs> there could be OS-specific files: Linux, kFreeBSD, Hurd? + <teythoon> or, preferebly, one that works on every os ? like it is now ;) + <gnu_srs> OK, one that works on every OS, with a common part and + OS-specific parts? + <teythoon> that's how it is now + <teythoon> stuff with LINUX in it is used for linux + <teythoon> stuff with GNUMACH in it is used for gnumach + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-22 + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: A boot message segfault: (syv-rc specific?) + <gnu_srs> + exec /sbin/init -a + <gnu_srs> INIT: version 2.88 booting + <gnu_srs> Using makefile-style concurrent boot in runlevel S. + <gnu_srs> end_request: I/O error, dev 02:00, sector 0 + <gnu_srs> Segmentation fault + <gnu_srs> Activating swap...done. + <gnu_srs> Checking root file system...fsck from util-linux 2.20.1 + <gnu_srs> another: mount: cannot remount /proc: Invalid argument + <gnu_srs> ... + <gnu_srs> df: Warning: cannot read table of mounted file systems: No such + file or directory + <gnu_srs> openrc boots on Hurd, login (user,root) works, read-only mode so + far, have to tweak some scripts:) + <braunr> not bad + <ArneBab> gnu_srs: woah! + <ArneBab> very cool! + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-22 + + <ArneBab> I think with that you are doing the most useful thing to avoid + OpenRC: If it provides almost the same as systemd and runs on the Hurd, + then there is no technical reason for using systemd, but many against it. + <ArneBab> s/avoid OpenRC/avoid systemd/ + <ArneBab> (gah, brain is jumbled) + <Shentino> I hate systemd because it monopolizes cgroups + <Shentino> which is SUPPOSED to be a generic interface open to anyone + <Shentino> I do not want an unholy alliance in a kernel-user api + <azeem_> ArneBab: the openrc maintainer will take care it will get + communicated + <azeem_> ArneBab: also, not sure what you mean about systemd, the question + isn't so much between openrc vs. systemd, but upstart vs. systemd + <azeem_> at least for the Technical Committee decision, none of the + tech-ctte members seems to consider openrc as n realistic contender + <azeem_> s/as n/as a/ + <gnu_srs> azeem_: seem like it is so:-( + <gnu_srs> maybe in a future, if openrc gets some attention and developers, + it could become a one-for-all solution;-) + <teythoon> gnu_srs: nice :) + <teythoon> ignore the proc related message + <teythoon> gnu_srs: there is no way to associate the segfault with a + process for me, can you shed some light on which process dies ? + <teythoon> as for df complaining, you could fix this up like youpi did: + <teythoon> grep ln /etc/hurd/rc + <teythoon> ln -s /proc/mounts /var/run/mtab + <teythoon> the proper way is to fix our libc of course + <gnu_srs> teythoon: I was just coping the boot messages, I don't know + either which process segfaults + <teythoon> hm, maybe you can make openrc more verbose about what it starts + <gnu_srs> All I wrote earlier was from sysv-rc + <teythoon> ah + <teythoon> i've never seen that then + <ArneBab> azeem_: actually I think OpenRC is the only sane choice: It is + the only choice which supports other kernels. + <ArneBab> Shentino: I can’t stand systemd, because it establishes a tight + control over the init process by encouraging developers to add + dependencies to libraries which are so tightly coupled with others, that + they cannot be adapted without affecting the whole system. + <ArneBab> Shentino: But I wrote about that in much more details: + http://draketo.de/light/english/top-5-systemd-troubles TL;DR: + distributions become completely dependent on a small group and they throw + away the skills their maintainers already have (shell scripting) + <ArneBab> And systemd is Linux-only… + <ArneBab> …with no intention of changing that. + <braunr> why would debian strive to support other kernels ? + <braunr> instead of other kernels adjusting ? + <braunr> if posix introduces new apis, are we going to say no, or are we + going to try and support them ? + <braunr> the issue of multi-kernel support is completely irrelevant + <braunr> what you're saying about tight coupling is actually the only real + issue of systemd + <ArneBab> braunr: I see a difference between providing a stable API which + others can easily replicate and a running target with no intention to + become cross-kernel usable (my experience with udev suggests that they + won’t really try to keep anything stable for long). + <ArneBab> braunr: but the tight coupling is the main issue for me, too: + that creates a vulnerability for the free software community. + <braunr> no, the free software community doesn't risk much here + <braunr> it's a technical problem + <braunr> ok, yes, posix as a point of convergence is clearly not the same + as linux as an implementation that diverges + <braunr> agreed + <ArneBab> if the systemd people decide to go a certain direction which + makes it impossible to provide a certain feature while using their new + tech, then there is a problem. + <braunr> but it still implies we have to adapt + <braunr> from my point of view, multi-kernel distributions are a technical + heresy + <braunr> if you want something really efficient, you want it very well + integrated + <teythoon> i'm concerned by the linux kernel making up interfaces w/o + proper considerations + <ArneBab> braunr: in Gentoo we had all the hassle with /usr on a separate + partition. There are usecases for that, and Gentoo wanted to provide + them, but udev (now systemd) made that impossible. + <braunr> teythoon: yes i'm concerned about that too + <teythoon> we will never be able to implement the cgroup interface for + example b/c it is too badly designed + <braunr> badly ? + <braunr> it's system specific + <ArneBab> braunr: also the systemd folks could essentially hold Linus at + ransom: “We couple userspace tightly to implementation details in the + kernel, so when you break the implementation in a way which we don’t + like, you’ll break userspace in the worst possible way” + <braunr> it's very hard to design an interface without properly + understanding what it would internally imply in the implementation + <braunr> ArneBab: that's already the case + <teythoon> system specific in a way that it will be impossible to implement + on non-monolithic kernels + <braunr> teythoon: exactly + <braunr> they didn't think of that because they don't care + <braunr> and why would they ? + <braunr> it doesn't make the interface bad per se + <ArneBab> it is the case in systemd, but not in sysVinit + <braunr> well it is too + <braunr> but sysvint is less demanding + <braunr> again, the coupling is the problem + <ArneBab> yes + <braunr> systemd comes from people with other goals and interests + <ArneBab> I think everything I wrote comes down to that. + <braunr> they're very technical, very business oriented + <braunr> they want to get up to speed with competitors quickly + <braunr> they're not wrong in doing that + <braunr> it just helps understand why they get with such results + <ArneBab> A distribution would be foolish to let other people take over a + crucial part of the system when those other people have a track record of + coupling more and more parts of the system with their product. + <braunr> and i agree, i don't want it either + <braunr> but please, stop with the nonsense + <braunr> don't say openrc is the only sane one because it's the only + multikernel one + <braunr> personally, i consider that very argument almost insane itself + <braunr> considering distributions that are hardly used can really have any + weight in the decision is absurd + <ArneBab> openrc is the only sane one, because it keeps already aquired + skills useful. + <braunr> s/distributions/kernels/ + <ArneBab> (that’s my opinion) + <braunr> we have to make progress + <braunr> the init system is clearly obsolete and lacking features + <braunr> so "acquired" skills here are irrelevant too + <braunr> if it takes acquiring new skills to operate a better init system, + i'm all for it + <braunr> after all, it makes a lot more sense to me than all those fancy + languages/technologies like C# and ruby that have gained so much + popularity in so little time + <ArneBab> If you can get a similarly good init system wiothut forcing + people to learn new skills, that’s a big win. + <braunr> you probably can't + <ArneBab> OpenRC is pretty close in features to systemd + <teythoon> err + <teythoon> not even close + <braunr> teythoon is right + <braunr> openrc is just sysvinit++ + <teythoon> no + <teythoon> openrc replaces the sysv rc, not sysvinit + <braunr> ok + <teythoon> it complements it + <braunr> i wasn"'t being pedantic here + <teythoon> nicely in my opinion + <braunr> yes i like it too + <braunr> but i'm afraid it's not a complete solution + <ArneBab> I think I need to be more pedantic in what I say: A system-boot + with OpenRC is pretty close in features to a system-boot using systemd. + <braunr> on the other hand, when i see discussions about event driven + systems and handling of dependencies, it sounds like something like + openrc could do the job, and something else, system-specific, would + handle the rest + <braunr> ArneBab: i disagree + <teythoon> me too + <teythoon> ArneBab: have you actually used systemd? + <ArneBab> I have read about what it provides. + <ArneBab> My udev experience burned me pretty badly. + <braunr> udev is only one part + <braunr> but actually, coupling is both a problem and a great feature + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> it's precisely the integration of many services previously + organized in a very messy way that makes it better + <braunr> and cgroups, by accurately tracking resources, allow even better + control + <teythoon> heh, i watched lennarts recent talk about kdbus + <ArneBab> but it does so by pulling in more and more parts instead of + providing a clean interface which separate projects can use. + <braunr> again, the coupling is too tight + <braunr> it's hard to hook in between + <ArneBab> teythoon: I watched lennart troll a talk pretty badly… + <ArneBab> braunr: yes + <teythoon> he cites mach and hurd for having an nice ipc mechanism, and + linux lacking such a system + <braunr> haha + <braunr> i was expecting such comparisons :) + <ArneBab> that’s why he writes an init-system which does not run on the + Hurd… + <teythoon> ArneBab: that's trolling on your part ;) + <braunr> :) + <ArneBab> somehow yes… + <braunr> what i personally get out of this is that, in the end, proper + messaging at the kernel level is something people do want + <braunr> and if you make stuff like x use it, why not things like the + network stack and the file system + <teythoon> i wish the linux kernel would allow the kernel devs to write + nicer interfaces + <ArneBab> yes + <braunr> they're almost in the process of acknowledging the merits of + multiserver architectures :) + <teythoon> b/c they lack a proper ipc mechanism, they do stuff like ad-hoc + filesystem-based interfaces that are crappy to support on the hurd :-/ + * ArneBab has been out of the loop for too long… + <braunr> teythoon: what file system do you consider "crappy to support on + the hurd" ? + <teythoon> braunr: cgroupfs in particular + <teythoon> not crappy, but impossible + <braunr> well, that's probably because we need realy resource containers + first + <braunr> real* + <teythoon> no, we'll never be able to implement the current interface + <braunr> i didn't study it as you did so i trust you + <teythoon> braunr: + http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de/posts/cgroupfs-is-as-cgroupy-as-it-gets/ + <braunr> ok this would require proper support at the client side + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> i wouldn't say impossible but definitely not as clean as we would + want it + <braunr> far from it + <teythoon> how would you ever implement it w/o fixing the client + (i.e. fixing the interface first) ? + <braunr> the client would translate the request + <teythoon> magical write retries ? + <braunr> probably + <teythoon> uh + <braunr> clients are the only entities which know what their file + desctiptors refer to + <braunr> descriptors* + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> so writing such a request would make the client get a magic retry, + and use the proper rpc, passing the proper rights instead + <teythoon> yeah, i can see how that could work + <teythoon> but i'm not sure that we should go down this path ... + <braunr> we probably really do'nt want to :) + <braunr> i'd personally be fine if debian would allow two init systems + <teythoon> me too + <braunr> with the powerful linux-specific one still allowing sysvinit + scripts + <teythoon> in particular b/c the sysvinit scripts are already there + <braunr> from what i've read, they all provide some decent backward + compatibility with sysvinit + <teythoon> yes + <braunr> and i think we can count on the linux community to riot if, + assuming systemd was chosen, it becomes too hard to use and tweak + <braunr> again, these people want their software to be used + <braunr> so they'll probably manage something decent in the long run, + whatever is chosen + <braunr> i don't care much + <braunr> :) + <kilobug> AFAIK Debian is planning to let users chose the init system, the + discussion is only on what should be the main/default one; but I might + have misunderstood it + <braunr> that was one of the possibilities, yes + <braunr> maybe we could help the debate by agreeing on whether or not we + consider supporting ports is that important, as port maintainers, + considering we'll probably keep the ability to use sysvinit scripts + anyway + <braunr> and making that decision known + <teythoon> and stating that we consider openrc an worthwile incremental + improvement, whatever debian decides to do wrt to the default init system + <braunr> for example, yes + <braunr> we should discuss that with youpi and thomas + <braunr> tschwinge: ^ + <braunr> when they have some time later :) + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-24 + + <gnu_srs> Good news, a successful boot of Hurd with OpenRC: + http://paste.debian.net/78119/ :-) + <gnu_srs> ramains to fix the false negative for checkpath -W + <gnu_srs> remains* + <braunr> not bad + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: btw, the segfault happens when starting the bootlogd + service: + <gnu_srs> end_request: I/O error, dev 02:00, sector 0 + <gnu_srs> Segmentation fault + <teythoon> gnu_srs: nice progress :) + <teythoon> i've never seen bootlogd crash like that, though i + <teythoon> i'm not sure it is installed + <gnu_srs> how can I check / ? it is mounted RW and even if cd to /run which + is on tmpfs, fsysopts --readonly fails: + <gnu_srs> :fsysopts: /: --readonly: Device or resource busy + <gnu_srs> I don't have bootlogd installed the segfault is at: + <gnu_srs> checkroot.sh: hwclock.sh mountdevsubfs.sh hostname.sh hdparm + keyboard-setup + <gnu_srs> called by /etc/rcS.d/S06checkroot.sh + <teythoon> you should probably create this directory that it fails to + create early in the boot process + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-25 + + <antrik> braunr: being Linux-only is *part* of the "tight coupling" + strategy of the systemd cabal + <antrik> of course you could implement all the Linux-specific interfaces on + other systems; as you could implement any other interfaces relied upon or + provided by systemd components... + <antrik> (this is in fact Lennart's favourit cop-out argument whenever + someone raises concern about this) + <antrik> the problem however is that such alternative implementations + usually have prohibitive costs + <braunr> yes i know + <antrik> (and Lennart knows that perfectly well... he doesn't exactly take + pains to conceal the fact that it's a cop-out) + <antrik> their whole point is to create a tightly integrated stack of + monopolistic components, giving a shit about any possible alternatives + <antrik> this does have an obvious appeal: it *significantly* reduces the + cost of innovation within their stack + <antrik> at the same time however it kills the traditional innovation + driver in the free software eco-system, which is competition among + interchangable components + <antrik> quite frankly, it makes little sense that other distributions are + embracing systemd in droves: the tight coupling pretty much turns them + all into Fedora look-alikes, questioning the point of their very + existence... + <zacts> what is dmd? + <antrik> as for Debian considering fringe kernels in their decision, I + think it makes *perfect* sense: the real value of Debian is precisely the + fact that it supports so many different things, making it a good base to + build upon + <antrik> (it's just unfortunate that many Debian developers do not realise + this, and instead try to compete with user-oriented distributions...) + <antrik> zacts: daemon managing daemon? yet another new init system... + <zacts> yeah + <zacts> didn't know if you have an opinion on it vs systemd + <zacts> and whether or not hurd will use it.. + <antrik> hm... not sure whether I do ;-) + <braunr> antrik: one could argue an init system is hard to make + interchangeable without also making it quite poor in functionality + <antrik> the GNU system uses it, right? when using the GNU system with the + Hurd (as it's really meant to be), that would obviously mean using DMD + with Hurd. though I'm not sure whether anyone has actually tried that + combination ;-) + <braunr> just to make it clear, i'm totally not in favor of systemd + <braunr> i'm just trying to measure the value of an interchangeable init + system here + <braunr> value versus cost + <braunr> why is it bad to try to compete with user oriented distros ? + <antrik> braunr: I suspect most of the really good things about systemd + could be kept while making it somewhat more open at fairly little cost... + <antrik> braunr: because that's not Debian's strength -- and never will be + <antrik> trying to compete in this space too hard is bound to fail, at only + bears the risk of loosing the actual strengths + <braunr> antrik: sounds true + <antrik> hm... thinking about it, I'd say it actually makes more sense for + the init system to be distribution-specific than kernel-specific... + <braunr> that makes sense + <braunr> but systemd isn't just an init system + <antrik> it's really the distribution's job to create a well-integrated + system. and basically, that's what the systemd cabal is doing for + Fedora... + <antrik> it's just problematic that they have so much influence in + important upstream projects, that they are basically killing any chance + for others to integrate things in different ways + <braunr> antrik: agreed + <braunr> the tight coupling i refer to is about the init system and the + upstream projects you mention such as udev, acpid, console-kit, etc.. + <antrik> yeah... and GNOME + <braunr> is it really that coupled now ? + <antrik> don't really know; but judging from remarks people make, it must + be pretty bad + <braunr> this reminds me of the talk on gnome 3 last year at fosdem + <braunr> it would have been hilarious if gnome wasn't such an important + project + <antrik> (specifically, GNOME is now pretty much tied to logind AIUI, which + is not entirely inseparable from systemd -- but again, the cost is + prohibitive...) + <teythoon> i don't get what all the hate here is about ... + <antrik> in fact, certain people used that as an argument why Debian must + switch to systemd as init, as they are already pretty much forced to use + various of the other coupled components anyways, and trying to decouple + them is too costly for Debian... + <braunr> teythoon: hate ? here ? + <teythoon> i mean they don't do this for fun, they actually provide + something of value, right ? + <braunr> some value + <antrik> teythoon: they? + <braunr> but they remove the kind of value that made free software evolve + the way it did, as antrik said + <teythoon> the evil cabal around systemd ;) + <antrik> I didn't say "evil"... not explicitly at least ;-) + <teythoon> then again, if you are runnign linux/gnome3 and plug in a second + monitor, that one is automatically activated + <braunr> yes, that's what they want to achieve + <teythoon> that's what they achieved + <braunr> i mean, they targetted that, it's not a side effect + <teythoon> and anyone not happy with how they did that can surely provide a + nicer solution ;) + <antrik> teythoon: as I said, there are clearly good aspects to what they + are doing -- but at the same time it's very dangerous to the free + software eco-system... + <braunr> teythoon: not easily + <teythoon> antrik: i don't buy that + <braunr> i do + <teythoon> braunr: yes, not easily. that is kind of the point, right ? + <braunr> pulling projects such as gnome into a category of kernel specific + applications is dangerous + <braunr> teythoon: well, considering who they are and the means they have, + they could have spent the time to do it right for everyone + <teythoon> maybe + <antrik> err... activating a second monitor is not in any way tied to + systemd or related compontents... I think you are talking about a second + seat + <teythoon> that's another killer feature they achieved, yes + <antrik> (which is nice, but quite frankly, a niche use case in my book...) + <teythoon> maybe you're not the typical user + <antrik> I'm not. but the *typical* user definitely doesn't care about + multi-seat + <teythoon> if you say so + <teythoon> antrik: when you say it's dangerous what 'they' are doing, what + do you mean exactly ? + <teythoon> dangerous for whom ? + <antrik> asides from schools in developing countries, who try everything to + save on IT costs, I really can't think of many users for multi-seat... + <teythoon> (maybe schools all around the world trying to cut down their + costs?) + <teythoon> or like everyone, here, a $30 dongle that gives you an extra + workstation, how awesome is that ? + <antrik> teythoon: see above: they are killing the ability to combine + interchangable components, which has always been a core asset of the free + software ecosystem + <teythoon> antrik: so gnome is going for systemd, and gnome loses the + ability to be used w/o systemd + <teythoon> why do you care ? how does this affect the whole ecosystem ? + <teythoon> i really don't get why everyone is getting so upset about this + <antrik> teythoon: who cares about a dongle giving an extra workstation? + the remaining users of workstations are either corporate -- who prefer + dedicated boxes for organisational reasons -- or gamers, who want all the + power to themselves... + <braunr> teythoon: well gnome is kind of one of the major destkop software + in the free software world + <antrik> s/one of// + <teythoon> antrik: you stated that you havent used gnome3, yet you have an + opinion how tightly it should be coupled with systemd or linux + <teythoon> people who haven't used systemd or upstart have an opinion about + which one should be preferred + <braunr> teythoon: why do you think people shouldn't think about systems as + a whole ? + <antrik> teythoon: actually, I am using it (for some value of "use") -- + though in legacy mode, as my hardware can't run the new bling... + <braunr> in that case, people shouldn't be allowed to vote, because that + would require them to be politicians .. + <teythoon> it's okay to think about that + <braunr> i don't think it is + <antrik> teythoon: but seriously, whether *I* have used it is quite beside + the point. I have no illusions about being a niche user + <braunr> people don't need to use something to actually understand it + <teythoon> but i cannot stand all the whining lately in the free software + world... + <braunr> whining isn't fair + <braunr> i mean, the word + <teythoon> y ? + <braunr> it's a big problem and complaining to force a debate is important + <teythoon> yes, but "they" are solving problems, and everyone is + complaining for one reason or the other + <braunr> they are also creating problems + <braunr> and not everyone is complaining + <teythoon> as opposed to offering alternatives + <braunr> that's a major issue, a lot of people are favorable to these + changes + <teythoon> and if you don't like what "they" are building, you are free not + to use it, no ? that's a freedom too ;) + <braunr> no + <braunr> you aren't + <teythoon> what ? + <braunr> that's precisely the point + <braunr> you'll be de facto forced to use it if you want to keep using the + rest + <teythoon> i'm free not to use gnome3 + <braunr> you won't be free from using linux if you want gnome3 + <teythoon> what kind of argument is that ? + <braunr> i'm abusing the word freedom + <braunr> because it has no clear meaning in practice + <braunr> as antrik said, it's about interchangeability and portability + <braunr> and alternatives + <braunr> accepting the way systemd is designed is a major shift towards + making linux its own standard, away from the rest + <braunr> and the way it's done isn't thought to easily allow the + alternatives to keep up with the changes + <teythoon> we agreed the other day that they shouldn't create ad-hoc + interfaces like they do, yes + <braunr> well that's the whole point + <teythoon> you just talked "about the way systemd is designed" + <braunr> they could invest some more effort to make well designed + interfaces that allow changing both the dependencies and the services + provided + <teythoon> how is that related to bad interface design ? + <braunr> for me, it's almost a synonym + <braunr> and we discussed it + <teythoon> aren't tightness of coupling and quality of interfaces + completely orthogonal ? + <braunr> it is designed with a narrow set of apparently company directed + interested towards a single system, a single distribution even, and + nothing else + <braunr> no + <braunr> absolutely not, when it's about something that should be + interchangeable + <braunr> an interface that forces tight coupling is of low quality to me + <antrik> braunr: they claim it's not actually company-directed... and I + tend to believe them on *that* point TBH + <braunr> antrik: this would have been a valid reason at least + <antrik> teythoon: it's just not right that some people can no longer use + major pieces of free software just because a tiny but highly vocal cabal + decides to disrupt the whole ecosystem + <teythoon> what are you talking about ? you are free to use older versions + of the software + <braunr> i's not technically feasible + <braunr> or it would require forking to maintain + <braunr> again, it's the start of a rift + <teythoon> but, if the gnome people want to go into that direction, who are + you to say that they shouldn't ?? that's what i get the least about this + kind of argument... + <braunr> i'm part of the free software community + <braunr> more accurately, the free unix-like community + <teythoon> and you are actively developing gnome... ? + <braunr> if they want to get out of this community, they'll hurt it, and + themselves + <braunr> do you understand what a rift is ? + <teythoon> but that's their choice, no ? + <braunr> a major division ? + <braunr> so what ? + <braunr> it doesn't mean it's a good one + <teythoon> you pick the desktop environment you like next best and be done + with it ? + <braunr> it's almost public service at this point + <braunr> what if they all do the same thing ? + <teythoon> err + <teythoon> they don't + <braunr> you won't be free to do what you want because the technical + possibility will have disappeared + <braunr> kde might + <braunr> if only to compete with gnome + <teythoon> well, if you don't like hte direction a project is taking, you + fork it + <teythoon> that's what happened + <braunr> exactly .. + <teythoon> why the long faces ? + <braunr> forks increase complexity and reduce manpower + <braunr> fork == division + <braunr> forking in the free software community is normally a last resort + <teythoon> huh ? since when is this considered a bad thing ? + <braunr> it's not a bad thing per se + <braunr> it usually implies a bad situation + <teythoon> < braunr> fork == division + <teythoon> and division == rift + <braunr> think of these situations that were caused by stupid drama and + lead to the duplication of a lot of effort + <braunr> openbsd, eglibc, jenkins, to name a few + <teythoon> i don't + <teythoon> why would i ? i never created these forks + <braunr> it affects the community as a whole + <teythoon> but the people who did thought it was necessary + <braunr> the fact they could do it is good, the fact they had to do it + isn't + <braunr> they were usually forced by the situation + <braunr> and often by the stupidity of other people + <teythoon> someone forced someone else to fork a project ? with a gun or + something like this ? + <teythoon> i don't buy this ;) + <braunr> of course not .. + <braunr> eglibc was forced by the inability of drepper to accept a whole + class of patches + <braunr> openbsd because theo de raadt has some huge ego + <braunr> for jenkins, it was a licensing issue iirc + <braunr> nothing technical at all + <braunr> nothing in the interest of the community + <teythoon> err + <teythoon> it brings diversity + <braunr> no + <braunr> netbsd versus freebsd brings diversity + <teythoon> i thought that was a good thing + <braunr> openbsd was just agotistic crap + <braunr> ego* + <teythoon> if there is no diversity, why should stuff be interchangeable if + there are no alternatives? + <braunr> and netbsd and freebsd aren't exactly forks, they're both bsd + based but had different goals from the start + <braunr> that's not what i'm talking about + <braunr> eglibc isn't exactly a new libc + <braunr> it's glibc+the stuff that should have gone into it + <antrik> teythoon: the stuff the systemd cabal does builds on the work of + thousands of projects and people; yet they act as if the don't own anyone + anything, and it's fine to boot out large parts of the community whos + work they are building on + <braunr> iceweasel isn't a whole new firefox + <braunr> most often, alternatives aren't forks of one another + <braunr> if they are, they have diverged a lot + <teythoon> antrik: that is your interpretation, and i respectfully disagree + with it;) + <braunr> and usually have different goals + <braunr> that's diversity, and i'm very ok with it + <braunr> (being a hurd guy and all) + <braunr> but forking because of decisions that prevent alternatives is a + very bad reason to fork + <teythoon> again, who are you to tell a project (say gnome) what they + should do or not ? + <braunr> that question makes no sense + <braunr> we're trying to think objectively + <braunr> forget who we are + <braunr> think about what should be done + <teythoon> no such thing ;) + <braunr> ok well, in that case, i'm a very smart person who knows a lot of + things, and people had better do what i tell them ;p + <braunr> satisfied ? :) + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> that's much better actually + <braunr> not really .. + <teythoon> it's more honest + <braunr> no it was sarcasm + <braunr> what was honest are the arguments i explained + <braunr> why care about who says them ? + <teythoon> i do + <antrik> teythoon: there is not much interpretation in there really. some + of their own statements are quite explicit... + <braunr> damn non scalable kernel .. + <teythoon> who is "their"? what statements ? + <braunr> teythoon: when building glibc, there are so many nodes to fake + that ext2fs+fakeroot allocate enough ports to starve kernel memory ... + <teythoon> if i were mr. gnome3 and you would tell me that i should cuddle + with systemd b/c that's bad for one reason or another, the first thing + i'd like to know is who is telling me that + <braunr> teythoon: why not solely consider the argument ? + <teythoon> braunr: yes, i can imagine fakeroot doing that + <antrik> teythoon: Lennart and his friends. not sure how much of these + statements I have seen written down -- part of it I heard myself from + their own mouths + <teythoon> braunr: b/c maybe i like to develop my project in the direction + i want + <braunr> that's unrelated + <teythoon> and if anyone disagrees, she may fork + <braunr> this is a debate + <teythoon> why ? + <teythoon> so now we are debating what i may develop or not ? you lost me + ;) + <braunr> a way to reach consensus + <braunr> many people are discussing so that projects like debian and gnome3 + make the best decisions + <braunr> a naive way to explain it is that the result is the sum of what + everyone likes and how louds he speaks for it + <teythoon> sure but you are not a gnome developer, no ? + <braunr> no, but again, i'm a free software community member + <braunr> and this affects the whole community + <braunr> because gnome3 is a major software component used by a lot of + people + <braunr> well, gnome at least + <teythoon> so the gnome project needs to seek consensus with everyone of + the free software community ? + <braunr> no + <braunr> that would be unanimity + <teythoon> but wrt to the systemd integration ? + <braunr> siding with systemd is starting to get away from the free software + community + <braunr> or, by bringing a lot of people along, dividing it + <teythoon> that's your interpretation + <braunr> yes + <braunr> always + <braunr> you don't have to say it, we're not doing raw science here + <braunr> it's implicit + <teythoon> i think it's important to point that out and make it explicit + <braunr> you made it several times + <braunr> we got the point + <braunr> what matters in the current discussion is whether you agree or not + and why + <braunr> and this will be your interpretation too + <braunr> and we'll see if it's convincing + <braunr> but, from experience, i expect noone will be convinced ;p + <teythoon> ^^ + <braunr> the issue is too tied with the core goals we have in mind + <teythoon> but why does it matter whether i agree or not + <teythoon> that's my point actually + <braunr> you seem to have a problem understanding the issue, i was trying + to convince you there is one + <braunr> so, if i want to achieve that, it matters + <teythoon> what core goals ? + <braunr> basic dialectic + <braunr> well, for example, for me, i want people to think of the system as + a whole + <braunr> i want something effective, technically very good, and that + respects user freedoms + <braunr> i also want alternatives, i won't explain why, let's say it's + obvious + <teythoon> i agree + <braunr> well, systemd people don't think of the system as a whole + <braunr> here, what i call "system" is very large + <braunr> it would almost equal society + <braunr> i understand why they do that + <braunr> they have the right to do that + <braunr> but then i could say i understand why people make proprietary + software, and they also have the right to do it, i still won't approve it + <braunr> it contradicts my personal goals, my personal view of how things + should be + <teythoon> i completely agree + <teythoon> but then again, what you said now and the way you said it was + very different + <braunr> maybe, it's 3am, i'm sick and exhausted :) + <teythoon> more abstract + <braunr> when i give an opinion + <braunr> actually, when anyone gives an opinion + <braunr> i consider it implicit that it's their point of view alone + <braunr> they're not enforcing anything + <braunr> merely speaking out + <teythoon> people tend to overestimate the importance of their own opinion + <braunr> hm i wouldn't say so + <braunr> and that's probably why the "who" doesn't matter a lot to me + <braunr> it would matter if the person in question had real power + <braunr> and his opinion could have a strong influence + <braunr> in which case it wouldn't be overestimated + <braunr> i could say what i think to systemd people + <antrik> teythoon: quite frankly, I'm not sure what you are complaining + about. the systemd followers are trying to impose their opinions on + various projects. other people (including braunr and me, among many + others) are voicing counter-opinions. what's wrong with that? + <braunr> but i'm pertty certain the weight they'll associate to what i tell + them will be very low :) + <braunr> antrik: he called it "annoying whining" + <braunr> i think it's the only problem + <antrik> braunr: I don't think the systemd people associate much weight to + *anything* others say... ;-) + <braunr> heh :) + <braunr> to make an historic analogy + <braunr> it seems to me they're repeating the same mistakes others did + during the unix wars + <teythoon> antrik: but when you say "the systemd followers are trying to + impose their opinion on various projects", don't you dismiss the + possibility that the gnome3 people just want to make external displays + hot-pluggable? + <braunr> of course they do + <braunr> don't you dismiss that proprietary software author just want to + make money ? + <teythoon> no + <braunr> well, if that's the only thing you keep in mind to make your + opinion, you'll miss important points + <teythoon> that is an example of course + <braunr> they're sacrificing interchangeability and starting a possibly + major rift in the community for hot pluggable displays + <braunr> it may not be worth it + <teythoon> not supporting stuff like that might make the whole ecosystem + obsolete + <braunr> i'm not saying it shouldn't be done + <braunr> i'm saying it should be done while sacrificing other important + things + <braunr> it would just take a little mort effort + <braunr> and even if it wasn't done + <teythoon> that's what i meant by "whining" + <teythoon> no offense + <braunr> what is the problem of it being "obsolete" ? + <teythoon> but talk is cheap, offering alternative solutions is hard + <braunr> isn't unix obsolete ? isn't xorg obsolete ? + <braunr> hum no + <teythoon> no one did, so they implemented their nice features + <braunr> the point isn't to offer alternative solutions + <braunr> it's to make them possible + <braunr> or at least, not deny their technical feasibility because they + don't care + <braunr> teythoon: see, "interchangeability and starting a possibly major + rift" don't look to conflict with your personal goals + <braunr> that's the point where i think i can no longer do anything to + convince you + <braunr> so i'll head to bed :) + <teythoon> heh, me too :) + <braunr> honestly, i don't care a lot + <braunr> i mean + <braunr> it won't change much for me + <braunr> but again, my brain is wired to think of things as a whole + <braunr> on that note, good night :) + <teythoon> good night :) + <antrik> teythoon: again, IT'S NOT ABOUT DISPLAYS + <antrik> believe me, I do have some understanding how display hotplugging + works + <antrik> also, the problem is not that gnome3 supports logind. the problem + is that gnome3 works *only* with logind now AIUI + <antrik> there is yet another way to state the fundamental problem + <antrik> there is a kind of social contract among free software projects: + every maintainer takes a reasonable amount of extra effort to support use + cases beyond his own. in return, his use cases are supported by other + maintainers + <antrik> the systemd guys are breaking this contract, by explicitly + refusing, up front, to take *any* effort to accomodate other projects' + needs + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-28 + + <azeem_> teythoon: + https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/EgKwQV8te7s + <teythoon> azeem_: pffff :) + <braunr> heh + <teythoon> which reminds me + <teythoon> if we want to state our position wrt the default init system + debate we should probably do it right now + <braunr> yes + <teythoon> ml or collaborative editor ? + <azeem_> well, tech-ctte chair called the vote only for the default init + system for the Linux-ports + <azeem_> the vote got shot down on technicalities, but that might stand + <azeem_> I think that is a good thing, cause it implies that not one init + system has to be adopted across all ports + <teythoon> we talked the other day that it might make sense just to state + our view and our needs + <azeem_> sure. + <azeem_> I think what's needed is (i) an init-system agnostic system to set + the enable/disable state of services (ii) possibly mandating a .ini-style + config file along the style of whatever init system gets chosen as + default for Linux, to be used by non-Linux init systems as inut + <azeem_> input* + <azeem_> just my 0.02 EUR + <teythoon> uh + <braunr> looks overkill + <teythoon> i was thinking more along the lines of 1) we have never used the + default debian init system and are cool with not using the default in the + future, 2) we intend to use sysvinit in the future, 3) to that end, we + ask the init script machinery to be left in place + <braunr> but then, people managed to write stuff like libvirt + <braunr> so who knows + <teythoon> 4) we will help maintaining it as part of our porter effort + <braunr> i agree with teythoon + <teythoon> 5) we look forward to using openrc as incremental improvement, + complementing our sysvinit boot solution + <braunr> yes that would be nice + <teythoon> i'll write a draft to debian-hurd, ok ? + <gnu_srs> openrc now has a dependency loop resolver, so parallel would + work:) + <teythoon> so is insserv, isn't it ? + <gnu_srs> there were complaints on openrc + https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945 in the tech-ctte + discussions, now fixed + <azeem_> gnu_srs: please accept the fact that openrc will not be picked by + the tech-ctte for the Linux ports + <gnu_srs> azeem_: I do, I'm referring to arguments during the discussion + (history) + <azeem_> sure, just checking + <ArneBab> teythoon: your post is being used to portray systemd cgroups + treatment as the right way… + <teythoon> ArneBab: so ? + <braunr> it probably is the right way + <braunr> that's not the problem + <ArneBab> do you want to clear that up? (do I remember correctly that you + did not like that way?) + <braunr> we don't like the cgroups interface + <teythoon> i will + <braunr> not the feature + <ArneBab> braunr: that’s what I meant + <teythoon> exactly + <braunr> the feature amounts to resource containers in the hurd critique + ... + <braunr> we do want that too :) + <braunr> anatoly: you want them to rewrite cgroups ? + <braunr> err + <braunr> ArneBab: ^ + +[[dbus_in_linux_kernel]]. + + <teythoon> i've been thinking + <teythoon> maybe the magic write stuff isn't that bad after all + <braunr> :) + <braunr> i was thinking the same thing actually + <teythoon> i mean, it's not the nicest thing, but it shows how flexible our + solution is + <braunr> the hurd is a lot about glue code already so why not + <teythoon> the problem is that there is no way to test cgroupfs + <teythoon> the main user is systemd, and it requires tons of other stuff + <braunr> right + <teythoon> any other user of cgroups is also probably using other + linux-interfaces too + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-29 + + <gnu_srs> About openrc having a dependency loop resolver: <teythoon>: so is + insserv, isn't it ? + <gnu_srs> I found is_loop_detected() in insserv/listing.c but that one just + exits without telling where the loop is + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-01-29 + + * youpi trying the new sysvinit + <youpi> hopefully we'll then be able to at last use the proper ifup/ifdown + debian way for networking :) + <youpi> teythoon: why leaving hurd's runsystem by default rather than + sysvinit's? + <youpi> ah, another issue, too, now that /dev/vcs appears in /proc/mounts, + umountfs would umount it + <youpi> ideally umountfs would not umount passive translators + <youpi> we could blacklist /dev/vcs in umountfs, but the same issue would + happen for user-defined translators in their own home, for instance + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-30 + + <gnu_srs> booting with the new sysvinit and openrc versions: works:), but + only in recovery mode:-( Hangs before INIT: version 2.88 booting + <gnu_srs> after start ext2fs: Hurd server bootstrap: ext2fs[device:hd0s1] + exec init proc authtask c1120dc8 deallocating an invalid port 134517370, + most probably a bug. + <gnu_srs> related or an openrc problem? will test with sysv-rc + <youpi> I don't have such issue with sysv-rc + <gnu_srs> k! + <gnu_srs> shouldn't recovery mode mean starting in runlevel 1, I get + runlevel 2? + <youpi> it should + <pere> gnu_srs: recovery mode normally mean single user, which is between + rcS and rc2 + <gnu_srs> I get INIT: Entering runlevel: 2 + <pere> rcS.d should really have been named rcboot.d, as that is really what + it is. + <youpi> ah, right, recovery is not single + <youpi> (single as in init 1) + <pere> runlevel 1 is not single user either. it is more a gateway into + single user. see /etc/init.d/single to see what happen at the end of + runlevel 1. + <gnu_srs> init 1 and init 2 seems to work + <gnu_srs> well, the openrc dependency loop detector has found an init + script loop, maybe it has to be fixed? + <gnu_srs> disabling the hurd console solved the dependency loop problems, + thanks openrc;-) + <gnu_srs> (have to dig deeper to see where the loop is, and how to solve + it) + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-31 + + <gnu_srs> Hi, does the hurd console work with sysv-rc: In operc I get with + #console -d vga -d pc_mouse --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd --repeat=kbd -d + generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs + <gnu_srs> console: Console library initialization failed: Not a directory + <teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, it works with sysvrc + <teythoon> gnu_srs: check that /dev/vcs has the appropriate translator + record + <gnu_srs> showtrans /dev/vcs: empty on another box: /hurd/console + <teythoon> yes, fix that and your console will be fine + <gnu_srs> settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console? + <gnu_srs> or should it be active? + <teythoon> no, set an passive translator record so that this will be + persistent + <gnu_srs> something is wrong: when starting the hurd console screen is + blanked (and hangs) + <gnu_srs> can I get the hurd console when running with the serial console + (to see boot messages)? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, yuo can + <gnu_srs> will try that image then, tks:) + <gnu_srs> teythoon: how to create all underlying directories? ls /dev/vcs: + 1 2 3 4 5 6 + <teythoon> don't, /hurd/console takes care of that + <gnu_srs> is settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console correct? + <teythoon> yes + <sjbalaji> What are those underlying directories representing ? + <teythoon> the hurd console is a console multiplexer + <teythoon> bringing multiple virtual consoles to the hurd + <teythoon> # showtrans /dev/tty1 + <teythoon> /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console + <gnu_srs> aha: console -d vga -d pc_mouse --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd + --repeat=kbd -d generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs + <gnu_srs> task c1120e70 deallocating an invalid port 1782, most probably a + bug. + <sjbalaji> teythoon: Is it that /dev/tty1 has multiple translators ? + <teythoon> no + <teythoon> exactly one translator is bound to any given node in the vfs + <gnu_srs> something is strange with the hurd console: booting with it + enabled still runs the mach console, halting: + http://paste.debian.net/79438/ + <teythoon> what is strange about taht ? + <gnu_srs> when starting the hurd console: task c1120e70 deallocating an + invalid port 1782, most probably a bug. + <teythoon> so ? + <gnu_srs> and the paste when halting: twice + <teythoon> that is a known issue + <gnu_srs> with the hurd console? + <teythoon> how do you know it's the hurd console ? + <teythoon> that message comes from the kernel + <teythoon> currently, it is not possible to tell which process is + responsible + <teythoon> b/c the task is given as a pointer to the kernel task structure + <teythoon> not as a pid + <gnu_srs> I don't ,it is triggered by it at least + <teythoon> currently there is no way to map the former to the latter + <teythoon> why do you think it's a problem ? is something not working as + expected ? + <gnu_srs> maybe a reproducible way to hunt that bug! + <teythoon> we have one already + <teythoon> it happens every time the hurd boots + <gnu_srs> yes, hurd console does not start, even when enabled:-( + <teythoon> then please say so ;) + <gnu_srs> I did: (11:23:30) srs: something is strange with the hurd + console: booting with it enabled still runs the mach console, halting: + http://paste.debian.net/79438/ + <teythoon> where do you say that the hurd console did not start ? + <gnu_srs> maybe it is easier to hunt the bug in an already booted system + <teythoon> you just said that the mach console is still active, wich it is + even if the hurd console starts + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> please start the hurd console by hand + <teythoon> -d current_vcs -c /dev/vcs -d vga -d pc_kbd --keymap us + --repeat=kbd -d pc_mouse --protocol=ps/2 --repeat=mouse + <teythoon> err + <teythoon> /bin/console -d current_vcs -c /dev/vcs -d vga -d pc_kbd + --keymap us --repeat=kbd -d pc_mouse --protocol=ps/2 --repeat=mouse + <gnu_srs> when I log in I have the mach console not the hurd console + <teythoon> yes, log in as root, then run that command + <gnu_srs> I've done that: (11:10:27) srs: aha: console -d vga -d pc_mouse + --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd --repeat=kbd -d generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs + <gnu_srs> please read? + <teythoon> and you discovered in that process that /dev/vcs lacked a + translator record + <teythoon> did you run it again after fixing that ? + <gnu_srs> the reply was: (11:10:27) srs: task c1120e70 deallocating an + invalid port 1782, most probably a bug. + <teythoon> well, if you are feeling that what i ask you to do is + unreasonable, i'm not sure how i can help you + <gnu_srs> yes, the translator was running! + <teythoon> you could hunt down the port deallocation bug, that'd be awesome + and most welcomed + <teythoon> but i don't believe it is causing your console malfunction + <gnu_srs> I did what you asked for?? + <gnu_srs> I'll do it again! + <gnu_srs> ok, now I don't get that error, but still no hurd console? the + process is running, logging out and then in, no hurd console. + <gnu_srs> not possible in serial console? + <teythoon> no, the hurd console is displayed using the graphic card + <teythoon> you asked for that with -d vga ;) + <teythoon> not sure if there are any other display drivers + <teythoon> when you asked whether you can use the serial line, i assumed + you used both qemus graphic terminal and a serial console + <teythoon> try kvm ... -serial telnet::1236,server,nowait, then use telnet + localhost 1236 to connect to the serial console + <teythoon> then, you can start the hurd console over the serial console and + see whether that worked + <gnu_srs> OK; that's what I asked before. I tried with the graphic one, + I'll try again + <gnu_srs> telnet output is empty + <gnu_srs> frozen + <teythoon> did you start a getty there ? + <gnu_srs> in hurd? + <teythoon> b/c if you dropped the console=com0 argument from you gnumach + command line, the mach console will be put on the vga screen, not on the + serial console + <gnu_srs> I dropped console=com0 from grub.cfg, yes + <teythoon> ok + <teythoon> so simply no one is talking to the serial port anymore + <teythoon> did you try to start the hurd console ? + <gnu_srs> I did before, can do it again + <gnu_srs> startin the HC blanks the screen, and freezes the vga output:-( + ssh still working + <teythoon> hm + <teythoon> try ps Ax | grep tty, are there any term servers running for + /dev/tty1..6 ? + <gnu_srs> lplenty of them: http://paste.debian.net/79442/ + <teythoon> good, even gettys are there + <gnu_srs> and the console translator runs + <teythoon> hm + <gnu_srs> root 1224 5 7 months /hurd/console + <gnu_srs> root 1227 1226 7 months /bin/console -d vga -d pc_mouse + pc_mouse -d pc_kb... + <teythoon> yes, everything looks good + <teythoon> just to be sure, you are currently using the qemus graphical + frontend, right ? + <gnu_srs> yes + <teythoon> hm :/ + <teythoon> gnu_srs: do you see loginpr processes ? + <gnu_srs> nope + <teythoon> hum + <teythoon> this strikes me as odd + <teythoon> on my system, i see no gettys but only loginpr processes + <teythoon> this is b/c the hurd getty does little other than to print some + text and run the login program + <teythoon> but on your system the getty sticks around + <teythoon> is /sbin/getty really the hurd getty? it's easily recognized by + its crappieness: + <teythoon> /sbin/getty --help || echo $? + <teythoon> 1 + <gnu_srs> 1 + <teythoon> hm + <teythoon> still funny though + <teythoon> you could try to run the hurd console, then run a getty manually + <teythoon> e.g. /sbin/getty 38400 tty1 + <gnu_srs> from the ssh login? + <teythoon> yes + <gnu_srs> then the graphic display is back showing the loin prompt:P + <teythoon> weird + <teythoon> well, so most things work + <teythoon> that's a good thing + <teythoon> funny that hurds getty should get stuck like this + <gnu_srs> and the terminal is hurd:-) + <teythoon> any chance you can produce a stack trace of one of your getty + processes ? + <gnu_srs> how? + <teythoon> gdb --pid=the_pid /sbin/getty + <teythoon> then, do bt like usual + <gnu_srs> so you mean tty2-6 are broken? + <teythoon> no + <teythoon> it's just for some reason your gettys do not behave nicely when + run from init + <gnu_srs> from running tty2: bt #0 0x01087b09 in ?? () + <gnu_srs> #1 0x00000000 in ?? () + <gnu_srs> not much + <teythoon> hm :/ + <teythoon> indeed + <teythoon> our getty logs to syslog, can you see anythign of interest here + ? + <gnu_srs> Jan 31 12:00:46 debian-openrc-20140123 rsyslogd-2066: could not + load module '/usr/lib/rsyslog/imklog.so', dlopen: + /usr/lib/rsyslog/imklog.so: undefined symbol: klogAfterRun + <gnu_srs> [try http://www.rsyslog.com/e/2066 ] + <gnu_srs> nothing tty releated + <teythoon> gnu_srs: oh, i just noticed, please look into auth.log, the + getty stuff ends up there + <gnu_srs> teythoon: http://paste.debian.net/79465/ + <teythoon> well, that is interesting :) + <gnu_srs> /dev/tty1 not a directory? + <teythoon> for instance, yes + <teythoon> it says bad syntax if it was invoked in the wrong way, i.e. not + with exactly two arguments + <teythoon> that might have been you yourself, right ? + <teythoon> with getty --help i mean + <teythoon> for the not a directory message, please verify that + <teythoon> # showtrans /dev//tty1 + <teythoon> /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console + <teythoon> and stat /dev/vcs/1/console says it's a character special file + <gnu_srs> I used exactly: /sbin/getty --help || echo $? + <teythoon> yes, that accounts for that bad syntax message + <gnu_srs> what so bad about that? + <gnu_srs> showtrans /dev//tty1 + <gnu_srs> /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console + <teythoon> getty is so simple minded that it doesn't really parse its + arguments + <gnu_srs> stat: http://paste.debian.net/79469/ + <teythoon> looks nice + <teythoon> everything looks nice, i'm at my wits end here + <gnu_srs> and everything works OK with sysv-rc? + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> by the way, are you using the sysvinit init scripts or something + openrc related ? + <gnu_srs> openrc use all the scripts in /etc/init.d + <teythoon> actually, could you try to kill -HUP 1 ? + <gnu_srs> BTW: the dependency loop detector has found many loops in those + scripts + <gnu_srs> kill -HUP 1: nothing happens + <teythoon> ok, try to kill one of those gettys and see if the one that + respawns works + <teythoon> then again, the getty should try to reopen the device every + minute until it succeeds + <gnu_srs> getty tty1 and tty2 disappeared? kill -HUP tty3 respawns + immediately + <gnu_srs> now no getty processes are left? + <gnu_srs> /dev//tty4: Not a directory etc? + <teythoon> sorry, i should have expressed myself more clearly + <teythoon> kill -HUP 1 sends a SIGHUP to sysvinit, this makes it reload + it's configuration + <teythoon> when i said kill some getty, i meant just kill some_pid + <teythoon> when you said 'kill -HUP tty3 respawns immediately', did you + mean you killed the getty that was listening on /dev/tty3, and then a new + one appeared and you got a login prompt at tty3 ? + <gnu_srs> a new pid appeared, the login prompt is on tty1 + <gnu_srs> this one? /hurd/term /dev/tty1 hurdio /dev/vcs/1/console + <teythoon> i'd like to invite you to look at daemons/getty.c + <gnu_srs> not a big piece of code: anything specific? + <teythoon> no, just look what it roughly does + <gnu_srs> not a directory is not coming from that code + <teythoon> correct + <gnu_srs> it execl-s login + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> inevitably + <teythoon> but you do not observe this + <gnu_srs> how come when they are running? + <teythoon> this is the question that you will have to answer in order to + make any progress + <gnu_srs> I killed only one of them: kill -HUP 1031 and they all + disappeared + <teythoon> i thought along these lines: the most obvious way to stall getty + is if it never exits that loop + <teythoon> so i guessed it might be failing to open the device + <teythoon> we already observed that getty works fine if invoked by you + manually + <teythoon> the question thus is, what is different when getty is invoked by + init ? + <teythoon> if a process started by init in this way is killed, init will + restart it + <teythoon> please note, that if anyone says kill that process, she means + send a signal that results in process termination + <teythoon> and while sighup causes processes to die if the signal is not + handled, it is not the ideal signal to kill processes + <teythoon> b/c some processes handle sighup + <teythoon> like sysvinit, which reloads its configuration + <teythoon> many daemons do this + <teythoon> see 'man 7 signal' for how signals affect processes + <gnu_srs> sorry, have to leave for now, bbl and thanks a LOT so far:) + <teythoon> ok :) + <teythoon> you are welcome :) + <gnu_srs> teythoon: I'm back but cannot spend to much time on this + tonight. Maybe you should try it yourself, do you want another image on + my box? + <teythoon> it'd be nice if you put your packages somewhere + <gnu_srs> there are no special packages sysvinit (-46) and openrc (-8) + <teythoon> surely openrc with some patches ? + <gnu_srs> from #openrc: (17:37:41) srs: start with sysvinit and make it + work first! + <gnu_srs> (17:28:43) srs: zigo: Then I copied that working image to + another, and changing hostname, and continued from there. + <gnu_srs> openrc with the hurd patches for /lib/rc/sh/init.sh (v8 should be + available from experimental by now) + <teythoon> sweet :) + <teythoon> gnu_srs: maybe it was just some weird issue with your system + <teythoon> i just switched to openrc and everything seems to just work + <teythoon> i'll redo what i just did more cleanly to get a clean test vm... + <gnu_srs> nice:) + <gnu_srs> teythoon: And you got the hurd console? + <teythoon> heh, i believe so >,< + <teythoon> i didn't see it b/c i was using --nographic + <teythoon> but ps Ax looked alright + <teythoon> hrm + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i can reproduce your trouble, umount still strips the + translator record from /dev/vcs + <teythoon> at system shutdown time + <gnu_srs> so that's the reason. Additionally I have to issue halt twice + from a ssh login, see http://paste.debian.net/79517/ + <teythoon> funny indeed + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i can reliably recover the hurd console by doing + <teythoon> settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console && service hurd-console restart + && pkill getty ; sleep 5 ; pkill getty + <teythoon> humm, as you say, halt doesn't work + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-01 + + <pere> I've just uploaded a new new sysvinit package to experimental, with + all the latest hurd fixes. + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-01 + + <gnu_srs> 17:53:28< teythoon> settrans /dev/vcs /hurd/console && service + hurd-console restart && pkill getty ; sleep 5 ; pkill getty + <gnu_srs> teythoon: Any ideas on how to solve this? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, i have that on my todo list + <gnu_srs> so it is not an openrc problem? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: no + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-01 + + <teythoon> start ext2fs: Hurd server bootstrap: ext2fs[gunzip:device:rd0] + exec init proc au + <teythoon> thtask with pid 6 deallocating an invalid port 134517370, most + probably a bug. + <teythoon> :) + <teythoon> pid 6 is exec o_O + <gnu_srs> teythoon: Nice to see that you added pid numbers for error + print-outs:) + <gnu_srs> so the boot error comes from the exec sever? + <teythoon> so it seems + <gnu_srs> server* + <gnu_srs> have you found where? + <teythoon> no + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-02 + + <pere> but when I install the new packages, and run update-alternatives + --config runsystem to select sysv, the boot fail with: start ext2fs: Hurd + server bootstrap: ext2fs[device:hd0s1] exec init proc authtask c1128dc8 + deallocationg and invalid port 134517370, most probably a bug. + <pere> was that the wrong approach? + <pere> is there some way to recover when hurd fail to boot with sysvinit? + <pere> I was able to boot in recovery mode. :) + <pere> and this time sysvinit booted. saw a segfault message just after + sysvinit started, no idea what caused it. + <pere> looks like it is startpar that segfaults. + <pere> looks like the invalid port message come every time, no matter if + the boot hang or not. + <pere> I was wrong. it isn't startpar segfaulting, it is something in + rcS.d/. + <pere> bootlogd is the process segfaulting at boot. + <pere> looks like the boot success rate is 30% or so. + <pere> reported bootlogd problem as <URL: http://bugs.debian.org/737375 >. + I really miss valgrind. :) + <teythoon> pere: yes, the invalid port message is from the exec server + <teythoon> pere: i see the hurd boot process hang sometimes, no matter if i + use sysvinit or not + <teythoon> i believe it's a race condition in the ext2fs, not sure though + <pere> teythoon: but did the frequency of the hang go up with sysvinit or + not? to me it seem like that. + <teythoon> pere: yes, i believe it got worse + <teythoon> what hangs is fsysopts --update / + <teythoon> runsystem.sysv does that quite early + <pere> able to debug it? + <pere> I like the fact that runsystem.sysv set up ip at boot time, while + with .gnu, I have to run dhclient /dev/eth0 manually + <pere> it is quite confusing that hurd got two init processes with + sysvinit. one as pid 1, and another that seem to be the parent of all + internal stuff. perhaps the latter could be renamed to hurd-system or + something like that? + <pere> "sleep 0.2 # Work around a race condition (probably in the root + translator)." do not look too good... + <pere> (I increased from 0.1 to see if it help me. :) + <teythoon> did it ? + <teythoon> i plan to rename /hurd/init to /hurd/startup + +[[hurd_init]]. + + <pere> nope. :) + <pere> five boots in a row hung. :( + <pere> still no go... + <teythoon> are you using a vm or real hardware ? + <pere> vm + <pere> kvm, via virt-manager, to be exact. + <teythoon> me too + <pere> on the sixt boot, after waiting a long time between try 5 and 6 + (gave up a bit), it booted. + <pere> sleep 1 did not help either. + <teythoon> :( + <teythoon> well, it's not *that* bad for me + <teythoon> in fact recently it has been a lot better + <teythoon> you might try my packages + <teythoon> pere: here http://darnassus.sceen.net/~teythoon/hurd-ci/ + <pere> teythoon: tested it, and it seem to solve the problem. + <pere> is also rid of the strange error at the start. + <pere> teythoon: your packages even work without the sleep 0.1, at least + some of the time. :) + <pere> hm, but the success rate without sleep 0.1 is very low. I was able + to boot once, and never again. :( + <teythoon> pere: yes, i fixed the spurious port allocation today :) + <teythoon> pere: nice to hear that the sleep 0.1 i put in does increase + your chance to boot as well + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-02 + + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i found the spurious port deallocation :) + <gnu_srs> Cangrats:-D + <teythoon> trouble is, i introduced it >,< + <gnu_srs> Congrats* + <gnu_srs> Ah, you did? + <teythoon> gnu_srs: yes, in debian/patches/exec_filename_fix.patch + <teythoon> + http://darnassus.sceen.net/gitweb/teythoon/packaging/hurd.git/commitdiff/6da3e0be8fde0594bd84a13536d9d93048186790 + * teythoon . o O (diffs of diffs are trippy :) + + +### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-03 + + <braunr> teythoon: oh nice, you found that bug :) + <teythoon> braunr: yes, once i knew where to look it was easy to fix ;) + + +### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-05 + + <teythoon> i wonder why the port deallocation bug made the system hang when + the libc was compiled with the newer gcc + <braunr> teythoon: so it was indeed the problem ? + <teythoon> braunr: youpi said so, yes + <braunr> oh right + +[[glibc/debian/experimental]], *glibc 2.18 vs. GCC 4.8*? + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-03 + + <pere> + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Testing_sysvinit_from_experimental_in_Debian_Hurd.html + <teythoon> :) + <teythoon> pere: sounds like your hurd-console isn't running and there is + no getty on the mach console + <teythoon> pere: you could add sth like 8:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 + console to your inittab + <pere> I'd rather wait until the hurd porters get it right in the debs. :) + <pere> I suspect upgrading the downloadable image to use the latest + packages also would help a lot. + <pere> with upgraded packages, /proc is working and pstree, pkill, top, etc + is working out of the box. :) + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-04 + + <pere> I just uploaded sysvinit with hurd support to unstable. :) + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-04 + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: Hi, the segfault during boot is coming from bootlogd, + see bug #737375 + <gnu_srs> also the output on the console is from there: end_request: I/O + error, dev 02:00, sector 0 + <teythoon> gnu_srs: interesting :) + <teythoon> gnu_srs: i believe the end_request message comes from gnumach + <youpi> yes, that's just a floppy disk access attempt + <gnu_srs> might be so yes + <youpi> it's not a "might", it's sure :) + <youpi> dev 02:00 is the flopy + <gnu_srs> k! + + +## [[glibc_IOCTLs]], `TIOCCONS` + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-04 + + <zigo> Each time I upgrade my hurd box, I cannot login into it ... + <zigo> No login prompt. + <zigo> WTF is going on? + <zigo> How to fix? + <teythoon> zigo: most likely your hurd console is not running and there is no getty started for the mach console + <zigo> teythoon: How to fix? (note: I already have the partition mounted in a loopback) + <zigo> Or maybe go in recovery mode? + <teythoon> depends + <teythoon> do you use sysvinit ? + <teythoon> do you use the hurd packages from hurd-ci ? + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-05 + + <zigo> teythoon: Sorry, didn't see your reply. I just used the Hurd image, + untar it, and apt-get update / dist-upgrade. That's it, nothing more or + less. + <zigo> teythoon: I obviously would like to install sysvinit, and later + OpenRC. That's the reason why I'm running Hurd: to make sure OpenRC works + with it without issues. + <zigo> teythoon: It seems it "sometimes work" or what??? + <zigo> I was able to repair it using the recovery mode, it seems. + <zigo> grrr... + <zigo> I got this issue again, again and again ... + <zigo> Sometimes, got the tty1, sometimes, it doesn't appear. + <zigo> That's REALLY frustrating. + <pere> zigo: and yes, the success rate for boot is not 100%. it increases + a bit by using the packages teythoon created at hurd-ci. + <pere> apparently some race condition somewhere. + <zigo> pere: So, I should just try and reboot again and again ? + <zigo> pere: Is it improving after switching to sysvinit? + <pere> once I had to boot six times before I got it running... + <pere> I was told that the race involves a call to fsysopts, and that the + success rate with sysvinit was smaller because fsysopts command was + called earlier. I can not confirm nor deny this. + <pere> with the latest packages from hurd-ci the success rate is almost + 100% again. + <zigo> pere: Where do get that? + <pere> zigo: see <URL: + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Testing_sysvinit_from_experimental_in_Debian_Hurd.html + > + <zigo> pere: What's the "update-alternatives --config runsystem" for? + <pere> to switch to sysvinit + <zigo> Right, that's what I was missing then! :) + <pere> the new sysvinit version in unstable was built for hurd one and a + half hour ago. so soon hurd users can skip experimental for that. + <zigo> pere: I've just succeeded in booting with OpenRC! :) + <zigo> Though this console pb is REAAAALLLYYYY getting on my nerves! :) + <zigo> Also, any idea why we don't get the nice colorfull output when + booting? + <zigo> When booting with OpenRC, I've noticed that the dependency loop + detects some loops with the hurd-console thing. + <teythoon> zigo: good to hear that you got it working + <teythoon> the console problem is the following + <teythoon> when you shutdown using sysvinit, the system will run umount -a + <teythoon> it will then mistake some translators (like the one on /dev/vcs) + for file systems and remove their passive translator records + <teythoon> you can fix this by running '/usr/lib/hurd/setup-translators -k + -p' + <teythoon> you can avoid it for the time being by using reboot-hurd or + halt-hurd + <pere> teythoon: btw, how often is the hurd boot image available for + download updated? + <teythoon> not very often + <zigo> teythoon: Can I run '/usr/lib/hurd/setup-translators -k -p' + mounting my hurd image in a chroot? + <zigo> Hum... + <zigo> Probably better to do that in the recovery mode, no? :) + <youpi> dpkg-reconfigure hurd + <youpi> would be easier to type :) + <youpi> but we really need to fix that /dev/vcs unmounting + <pere> missing working getty and missing symlink from /run/mtab to + /proc/mount are the most serious problems I still see. + <zigo> The recovery mode doesn't work with OpenRC ! :( + <zigo> (it does in kFreeBSD and Linux, not with hurd ...) + <zigo> What happens is that it continues to runlevel 2. + <zigo> How can I fix then? + <youpi> pere: missing working getty? + <youpi> I don't see what issue you are referring to + <youpi> about the missing symlink, I'm wondering what is supposed to add it + <youpi> zigo: I don't know if anybody investigated it yet + <pere> youpi: yes, after boot there is no login prompt. + * pere have no idea, suspect a script in initscripts. + <zigo> youpi: I'm reffering to the fact that I have no login prompt after + boot, and that I don't know how to fix, since I don't have a recovery + mode to my disposal anymore. + <youpi> pere: but is the console started? + <youpi> (I mean the hurd console) + <zigo> pere: I suspect a wrong dependency, which OpenRC by the way, prints. + <youpi> pere: otherwise, unless you have a /dev/console getty in + /etc/inittab, it's expected you don't have a prompt + <youpi> zigo: add + <youpi> c:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 console + <youpi> to your /etc/inittab + <teythoon> youpi: yes, we need to get that fixed + <youpi> grrrr + * youpi wanted to change the image file on people.d.o + <youpi> but I can't do that without downloading it on my laptop, to be able + to modify it + <youpi> I would have been, if people was a hurd system :) + <teythoon> the proper way to fix this is to implement the get_source stuff + and get rid of the heuristic in mtab.c + <pere> youpi: nope, no console process running. + <youpi> then that's why, /dev/vcs got unmounted + <pere> I already have a console getty in inittab. got it from the last + sysvinit package + * youpi should have brown-bag-fixed these bugs before this week-end + actually :) + <youpi> pere: but you don't get a getty prompt on the mach console? I don't + understand why + <youpi> it does work for me + <teythoon> brown-bag-fixed ? + <zigo> youpi: Adding that in /etc/inittab didn't fix anything. + <youpi> yes, ugly hacks uploaded to debian-ports + <youpi> zigo: even with rebooting? + <youpi> could you snapshot your screen so we can make sure what you are + actually getting? + <zigo> youpi: I did it mounting my partition in a loopback... + <zigo> Then booted up, and still couldn't see the console prompt. + <youpi> ok, but please take a snapshot, so we are sure what is actually + happening + <youpi> whether the console starts, etc. + <pere> that info passed out of the screen and is not shown after my boot, + at least. + <youpi> which info? + <youpi> again, please take a snapshot of the screen + <youpi> otherwise we are just guessing, and that's never good for debugging + <zigo> Maybe you'll find this interesting: http://paste.debian.net/80246/ + <zigo> This is the output of OpenRC booting and detecting dependency loops + in the LSB header scripts. + <pere> youpi: the info about the console being started or not. I'll show + you, give me a minute. + <youpi> zigo: well, that shouldn't be more problems than the dependency + loop already existing between rc.local and rmnologin + <pere> youpi: any loop is a fatal problem. + <youpi> how come the rc.local vs rmnologin is not a problem ? + <zigo> With sysv-rc in Debian, there's all sorts of loops that are just + silent. + <pere> I have not seen that loop on my linux system, so I am unsure what + you talk about. + <youpi> (the actual issues is simply that all three use Required-start: + $all, and thus all depend on each other) + <zigo> That's a huge pb IMO. + <youpi> pere: well, + <pere> zigo: show me one? + <youpi> rc.local:# Required-Start: $all + <youpi> rmnologin:# Required-Start: $remote_fs $all + <zigo> Yeah, the $all is just *bad*. + <pere> that is no loop. + <zigo> I do believe we should implement a lintian warning about it. + <pere> sure, $all do not behave the way most people expect, and should be + avoided as much as possible. + <pere> any other loops? + <youpi> no + <youpi> (not that I know of) + <pere> youpi: sending you the screenshot via irc. + <youpi> uh, long time no use dcc send, I don't even know where it sent it + to :o) + <pere> ok. aborting and trying another approach. + <pere> http://www.picpaste.com/booted-herd.png + <youpi> ok, so boot didn't actually finish + <youpi> that's why you don't get gettys or hurd-console (which is last) + <youpi> there must be some init script hanging in the meanwhile + <pere> logging in via ssh show no running startpar process, so I doubt that + is the case. + <pere> syslog contain this: Feb 5 10:10:27 hurdtest console[808]: Console + library initialization failed: Not a directory + <youpi> that is due to /dev/vcs not mounted + <youpi> but that should have not prevented the boot from completing... + <pere> the boot is completed, as far as I can tell. + <youpi> you can disable the hurd console in /etc/defaults/hurd-console + <youpi> do you have gettys running? + <pere> no such file. + <youpi> oops, -s + <pere> http://paste.debian.net/80251/ + <teythoon> pere: check your /etc/inittab, is there a getty for the mach + console ? + <youpi> he said yes earlier + <teythoon> oh ok + <teythoon> i wonder why it doesn't show up then + <youpi> same for me + <teythoon> if the getty cannot open the device, it will loop + <pere> ah, I was wrong. the inittab is not the one I thought. the current + one is after a reinstall, while I checked the content before that. + <teythoon> pere: check /var/log/auth.log + <pere> there is indeed no console entry in /etc/inittab. I thought it + would be copied into place during upgrades? + <teythoon> not if it exists + <teythoon> iirc + <youpi> indeed + <pere> ah, great. "cp /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab" and a + reboot fixed it. :) + <youpi> phew :) + <pere> it really should try harder to update the inittab on hurd to a + working one. + <teythoon> didn't i do something like this to fix the getty path ? + <pere> yes. that was the code I expected to solve this. + <teythoon> it didn't work ? + <pere> well, I had the wrong inittab file... + <pere> btw, do hurd have the needed syscalls for bootlogd to work? + <teythoon> i haven't looked at bootlogd yet + <pere> would be nice to have a text dump of the boot when trying to figure + out what went wrong. + <teythoon> yes, that'd be nice + + <youpi> pere: could you blacklist /dev/vcs in umountfs, just like already + done for /proc|/dev|/.dev etc. ? + <youpi> so at least that case, which is really problematic, gets fixed now, + and not have to wait for another, more hurdish solution + <pere> youpi: just send patches to bts, and I'll pick it up from there. + <teythoon> nice. i'll work on the proper solution. bbl + <rleigh> teythoon: Can we add those translators to the exclusion lists in + umount[nfs]? + <rleigh> Sorry, I just noticed youpi's comment. I'm a bit behind. + <heroxbd> rleigh: good to see you! are you back to the keyboard? fully + recovered? + <rleigh> Not quite fully, but on the mend, thanks! + <heroxbd> :] + <pere> rleigh: yeah, good to see you again. I got a burst of energy and + brushed a bit on sysvinit in your absence. :) Even revitalized the + #pkg-sysvinit channel. :) + <rleigh> pere: Yes, I saw all the commit emails flying by! + <rleigh> I realistically won't be doing much for several weeks at least + though, I'm afraid. + <pere> no worries. spend your time getting well. :) it would be great to + have you on #pkg-sysvinit, though. :) + <rleigh> I'll join, no worries. I should add it to my irssi config so I + can't forget! + <heroxbd> teythoon: serial console always works, right? no matter how + hurd-console behaves. + <teythoon> heroxbd: yes + <teythoon> but you need a getty on it + <youpi> well, just like on linux :) + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> almost + <teythoon> on mach, we have the mach console. by default that is put on the + vga screen, but you can make mach put it on a serial port using the + gnumach command line flag console=comX + <youpi> well, just like on linux :) + <heroxbd> understood, thanks! + <teythoon> oh, i didn't realize linux has this as well + <heroxbd> teythoon: you'll use it a lot on a embedded system + <heroxbd> an* + <teythoon> ok + + <gg0> plus, seems it can't cleanly umount /, at boot it fsck's it, fixes it + and auto-reboot + <youpi> it's odd that / doesn't get unmounted, don't you get a message at + "notifying ext2fs device:hd0s1 of shutown" ? + <gg0> on console last 3 lines on halt are + <gg0> Deactivating swap...swapoff: /dev/hd0s5: 4193208k swap space + <gg0> done. + <gg0> Unmounting local filesystems...done. + <gg0> INIT: no more processes left in this runlevel + <youpi> is this on reboot or on halt? + <gg0> halt + <youpi> then you should also be getting the "notifying" messages, as well + as "In tight loop: hit ctl-alt-del to reboot" message + <gg0> it umounts uncleanly on reboot too + <youpi> if you don't wait for these, there's little wonder it's not + properly unmounted + <gg0> i waited many seconds, time to rewrite 3 lines above for you for + instance (not a fast typist) + <gg0> on reboot it's harder but iirc they don't appear as well + * gg0 rebooting again + <gg0> need to wait it finishes fsck'ing + <gg0> (i should resoldering my serial cable to get back to lazily c&p) + <gg0> -ing + <gg0> many Give root password messages then + <gg0> Give root password for maintenance + <gg0> (or type Control-d to continue): + <gg0> INIT: Id "z6" respawning too fast: disabled for 5 minutes + <gg0> INIT: no more processes left in this runlevel + <gg0> i'll wait 5 mins to see what happen + <gg0> ok another dozen of Give root password and same couple of INIT above + <gg0> no, just the first INIT + <youpi> so z6 doesn't work + <youpi> i.e. /sbin/sulogin (see /etc/inittab) + <youpi> check out why that is + +[[hurd/translator/mtab/discussion]], *IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-25*, +*coreutils' `df`*. + + <youpi> [...] depends on coreutils actually building + <youpi> which depends on putting back a login package from the shadow + source package + <pere> are someone on that task? + <youpi> no idea + <youpi> IIRC I've mentioned the issue on the lists like months ago + <youpi> but probably nobody took the tas + <youpi> k + <youpi> basically it means fixing any bug that login or su from the login + package would have + <youpi> and then properly handle the migration from hurd-provided versions + to login-provided versions + <youpi> and then we would be able to build coreutils + <pere> which BTS report is this? + <youpi> I don't know if any report has been written about it + <youpi> perhaps simplest would be to build the login package, but not its + bin/login + <youpi> it seems hurd's getty uses special options of hurd'slogin + <youpi> that's probably the easiest way to go + + <gg0> sulogin seems to work fine but it shouldn't even called: + <gg0> # Normally not reached, but fallthrough in case of emergency. + <gg0> z6:6:respawn:/sbin/sulogin + <gg0> +be + <pere> I suspect a good fix is to provide a new init.d script in the hurd + package adding the symlink for hurd. + + <gg0> umountfs gets stuck at "Will now umount local filesystem:settrans + -apgf /lib/rc/init.d" + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-05 + + <gnu_srs> teythoon: Any ideas why I have to issue halt/reboot twice to make + the command succeed (from ssh login) + <gnu_srs> Is it the same issue with sysv-rc? + <teythoon> no + <gnu_srs> BTW: The segfault when booting came from bootlogd (wrong + parameters, Linux/~Linux), removing that one fixed it;-) + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-06 + + <youpi> teythoon: we really need to find the boot issue for which you added + a sleep 0.1 in runsystem.sysv + <youpi> apparently I had to move it above the mach-defpager startup, to get + a system that boots most of the time... + + <azeem> did somebody look at + http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html + ? + <braunr> azeem: interesting + <azeem> braunr: was mentioned here: http://lwn.net/Articles/584428/ + <azeem> " Systemd won't work for them, that's for sure, but nosh as a + systemd unit file compatible alternative could. " + <braunr> "I'm also very interested in seeing a discussion where the Debian + Hurd and BSD porters weigh in for themselves" + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-06 + + <gg0> on halt/reboot it can't remount readonly root because it's busy, what + makes it busy? + <gg0> by keeping /lib/rc/init.d mounted (like /dev/vcs) it shuts down + properly + <youpi> I don't know about such directory + <gg0> so seems that failed readonly remount is not a real problem because + at the end it runs halt-hurd/reboot-hurd which umount root properly + <youpi> yes + <gg0> afaiu it's a tmpfs where openrc copies "itself", kind of work + directory + <gg0> by removing it, it can't continue working + <gg0> at boot some messages are about its creation/population + <pere> why do init.d/hurd-console depend on $all? In most cases, depending + on $all is not giving you want you expect. + <youpi> because we prefer to start the console (and thus clear all the + screen) only after the boot has finished + <youpi> otherwise the console output will be messed up by the end of the + boot messages + <teythoon> youpi: there has to be a better way + <teythoon> b/c the way it is now, if one spawns a getty on the mach + console, it will mess up the hurd console as well + <youpi> well, we do want mach messages printed even with the hurd console, + at least + <teythoon> i once thought that instead of printing them the kernel could + send messages to a registered userspace daemon that could e.g. send them + to syslog + <youpi> that requires syslog to be working at all + <pere> changing $all to $local_fs seem to work fine here. + <youpi> when the kernel cries out, we'd better always be able to hear it :) + <youpi> pere: but then you have the bootup messages in the middle of the + console, don't you? + <pere> not as far as I can tell. look just the same as before. + <youpi> well, on my box it seems that it gets to start after other daemons, + by luck + <youpi> ah, perhaps getty actually clears the tty? + <youpi> then that would be ok + <teythoon> youpi: i don't think it does + <youpi> well, somehow something clears the output at least + <teythoon> i thought he hurd console does this + <youpi> it does on startup, yes + <youpi> but if it starts before other daemons + <youpi> the damons startup output gets over it + <youpi> one sees the console clear the screen, then get daemon startup + messages, and then the screen gets cleared again before the login prompt + appears + <teythoon> interesting, i haven't seen this happening + <youpi> it seems like it happens when emitting text on /dev/tty1, the + console will then clear the screen to make the way for the new output + <youpi> and since that happens on getty startup, it happens to be after all + daemon startup + <youpi> yes, that's what happens + <youpi> so considering this, I'm fine with starting the console earlier + <youpi> getting a display glitch seems to have been acceptable on Linux for + years :) + <youpi> (during boot, I mean) + <teythoon> ok + + <gg0> anyone else tried openrc? + <gg0> 15:20 < pere> yes, it did not umount properly. + <gg0> 15:36 < gg0> reboot or halt? it takes few seconds to actually + reboot/halt since the last message from openrc + <gg0> 15:39 < gg0> any typo adding such path? + * gg0 likes cross-channel pasting + <gg0> anyone else keeps getting unclean umounts even after applying + http://paste.debian.net/plain/80386/ ? + <teythoon> gg0: yes, me. worked fine, it didn't shut down properly though + <gg0> here works like a charm + <gg0> what do you mean by properly? + <gg0> i see first it can't remount root readonly but at least by not umount + path in question it continues executing scripts till actually shut it + down with something like {halt,reboot}-hurd + <gg0> *not umounting + <gg0> *shutting + <teythoon> for me it did not shut down + <gg0> you mean don't you get classic press ctrl+alt+canc to reboot message? + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> from my perspective (and from /hurd/init's), that's not shutting + down + <teythoon> as in it did not call reboot(2) + <gg0> what are configuration not to miss besides switching runsystem to + sysv one? + <gg0> *configuration steps + <teythoon> no idea, i did nothing else but to switch to runsystem.sysv and + to install openrc thus replacing sysv-rc + <gg0> can you paste shutdown messages somewhere? + <teythoon> sure + <gg0> .o(world is failing, /me can't debug teythoon :)) + <teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/hidden/745071e6/ + <gg0> in my case i just found out that /etc/init.d/umountfs tries to umount + /lib/rc/init.d where openrc scripts are + <gg0> what if you set VERBOSE and print REG_MTPTS? something like + http://paste.debian.net/plain/80570/ + <gg0> there i got "settrans -apfg /lib/rc/init.d" which vanished with first + patch + <teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80573/ + <gg0> ok and if you apply first patch http://paste.debian.net/plain/80386/ + <gg0> i.e. adding |/lib/rc/init.d to mount point to ignore + <teythoon> didn't help + <gg0> well output should change though + <teythoon> it does + <teythoon> but it still does not shut down + <gg0> paste please then + <teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80576/ + <teythoon> what did you expect ? + <gg0> did you unapply VERBOSE & print REG_MTPTS? + <teythoon> yes + <teythoon> no + <teythoon> well + <gg0> seems you do, if VERBOSE is set, it prints Will now unmount local + filesystems" + <teythoon> i restored a vm snapshot, and applied both patches + <gg0> instead of "Unmounting local filesystems" + <gg0> *seems you did + <teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80577/ + <teythoon> shall i do it again ? + <gg0> and what after "root@debian:/# halt" ? :p + <teythoon> 23:55 < teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80576/ + <teythoon> and openrc shouting lots of stuff about breaking dependencies + <gg0> please yes do it again + <gg0> if VERBOSE is set, it prints "Will now unmount local filesystems" + instead of "Unmounting local filesystems" + <teythoon> yes, you are right + <teythoon> still, it does not work + <teythoon> http://paste.debian.net/80579/ + <gg0> i'm curious about the new REG_MTPTS, supposing /lib/rc/init.d has + been suppressed + <gg0> ok stop + <gg0> 23:47 < gg0> ok and if you apply first patch + http://paste.debian.net/plain/80386/ + <teythoon> i did + <teythoon> well, i added that path + <gg0> i don't believe so, it should ignore it if added + <teythoon> did it fix the issue for you ? + <gg0> yes + <gg0> any typo in addition? + <gg0> obviously patch is against sysvinit source but you have to apply it + to /etc/init.d/umountfs + <teythoon> obviously + <gg0> isn't it time to tell me you are kidding me yet? + <youpi> pere: thanks for the upload. I happened to realized that since it + was in collab-maint, I could as well just commit changes, I hope it's ok? + <teythoon> gg0: root@debian:~# fgrep '/lib/rc/init.d' /etc/init.d/umountfs + /|/proc|/dev|/.dev|/dev/pts|/dev/shm|/dev/.static/dev|/proc/*|/sys|/sys/*|/run|/run/*|/lib/rc/init.d) + <gg0> /dev/vcs is missing, not the latest sysvinit version + <gg0> could this affect shutdown? + <teythoon> i know + <teythoon> possibly + <gg0> what if you also add /dev/vcs to path list? + <teythoon> what then ? + <teythoon> i don't mind /dev/vcs being + <teythoon> err, 'umounted' + <teythoon> i can handle that just fine + <gg0> i mean what happens if you add /dev/vcs to path list in + /etc/init.d/umountfs as you did with /lib/rc/init.d? + <gg0> what happens = how it shutdown + <teythoon> why would it be any different ? + <gg0> no idea, seems the only change you don't have + <gg0> i just know it fixes hurd console + <teythoon> i know it fixes the hurd console b/c i was the one who broke the + hurd console in the first place ... + <gg0> quite sure there's something wrong on your side + <gg0> if it's actually among those path to ignore, it can't be added to + REG_MTPTS + <gg0> my /proc/mounts http://paste.debian.net/plain/80583 + <gg0> yours? + <gg0> i hope i'm not forgetting one change i did around + <gg0> teythoon: /proc/mounts ? + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-07 + + <gg0> teythoon: sorry for pasting reversed patches + <gg0> please apply http://paste.debian.net/plain/80587, halt and paste + output + /proc/mounts + <pere> youpi: just fine. but please join us on #pkg-sysvinit and make sure + to follow the mailing lists. + <teythoon> gg0: no, sorry, i was perfectly able to use -R on your patches, + as demonstrated by the paste i send + <teythoon> i think i'll rather just wait for the next sysvinit package and + try it again + <gg0> teythoon: i don't doubt you are able, i'm sorry because i messed up + things + <gg0> /lib/rc/init.d should not go in $REG_MTPTS + <gg0> sysvinit 2.88dsf-48 just add /dev/vcs to not-to-umount paths and make + boot consider -s for single user, nothing about umounting filesystems on + halt/reboot + <pere> the /lib/rc/init.d/ change to umountfs seem to be the wrong one, as + it do not solve the problem for me. because of this, I have not applied + it to git. + <gg0> pere: could you try to apply http://paste.debian.net/plain/80587, + halt and paste output? + <gg0> well it applies to teythoon who doesn't have /dev/vcs + <gg0> */dev/vcs change + <gg0> pere: this one applies to -48 + installed. http://paste.debian.net/plain/80615/ + <gg0> given /lib/rc/init.d is added to not-to-umount paths it can't go in + REG_MTPTS + <pere> http://picpaste.com/halt-hurd-DVEVoHnr.png + <gg0> pere: you didn't apply it + <gg0> no messages from umountfs + <gg0> which is even more weird + <pere> well, patch claimed it did. + <gg0> normally it says "Unmounting local filesystems..." + <pere> checked the file, patch is applied. + <gg0> ok i think i got it + <gg0> patch is good. it just requires booting twice _and_ removing + non-patched /etc/init.d/umountfs.* if any + <gg0> patch = adding /lib/rc/init.d + <gg0> so + <pere> which files do you need to remove? + <gg0> /etc/init.d/umountfs.* and /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs.* + <gg0> do you have any? + <gg0> you should just have patched umountfs under both /etc/init.d/ and + /lib/rc/init.d/started/ + <gg0> the latter is populate at boot, that's why i said twice to become + effective + <gg0> *populated + <gg0> but propably /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs can be fixed on the fly + <gg0> from start: + <pere> why do you need to remove these files? + <gg0> 1/ patch /etc/init.d/umountfs by adding /lib/rc/init.d to + not-to-umount path list + <pere> why are these files not ignored? + <gg0> 2/ remove /etc/init.d/umountfs.* if any (eg. .orig .new .whatever) + <gg0> pere: because it loads them at boot, you need it loads just the right + one + <gg0> 3/ reboot twice + <gg0> (3/ halt twice) + <pere> this sound very fishy to me. + <gg0> or 3/ fix umountfs files under /lib/rc/init.d/started as well + <gg0> that should make it shutdown properly right away + <pere> my halt still hang. + <gg0> pere: you have /lib/rc/init.d in both /etc/init/umountfs and + /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs and there are no umountfs.* around? + <gg0> problem seems to be it picks first it finds if there are more than + one + <gg0> well i could have been more precise: /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs + is a link to /etc/init.d one + <gg0> btw there must be just one and only one umountfs, patched + <gg0> pere: clean /etc/init.d, reboot/halt with reboot-hurd or halt-hurd, + then next sysv reboot/halt will be good + <gg0> you just need to leave patched umountfs under /etc/init.d alone + <gg0> patch has always been good, it just needs 2 reboots to be appreciated + <gg0> pere: do you have other /etc/init/umountfs* files besides patched + one? + <gg0> my guess is it takes the first and only the first which Provides: + umountfs + <gg0> 12:17 < pere> why are these files not ignored? + <gg0> 12:35 < gg0> my guess is it takes the first and only the first which + Provides: umountfs + <gg0> to confirm that, if you have umountfs and umountfs.orig, under + /started you'll find just umountfs.orig + <gg0> pere: how goes? + <gg0> teythoon: last ~40 lines + <gg0> i'm assuming you have any else umountfs.* under /etc/init.d. if you + just add /lib/rc/init.d path to the only umountfs there should not be any + problem + <pere> gg0: removing the umountfs.* files did not help, as far as I can + tell. + <pere> are you telling me that openrc caches all init.d scripts in + /lib/rc/init.d/ at boot? + <gg0> pere: yes, you can see them. which umountfs* do you have under + /lib/rc/init.d ? + <pere> the right one. :) + <gg0> only the right one? + <pere> just scared me to know that changes on the disk do not take effect + immediately with openrc. + <gg0> pere: only the right one? + <pere> yes + <gg0> here i screwed it up by forcing initscripts removal and reinstall to + reproduce it, then fixed it once again + <gg0> i should just improving the explaination :) + <gg0> pere: "removing the umountfs.* files did not help," so did you find + any? + <pere> yes, both .orig, .rej and .dpkg-old + <gg0> pere: ok you should find one of them linked under + /lib/rc/init.d/started then + <gg0> /lib/rc/init.d/started/umountfs.* + <pere> I removed them three boots ago. still halt hangs. + <gg0> pere: and current umountfs have /lib/rc/init.d in path list? + <gg0> *has + <pere> yes. + <gg0> pere: can you access via ssh to it before issuing halt? + <pere> that is how I access it normally. + <gg0> ok + <gg0> before halt df should list /lib/rc/init.d as well + <gg0> after halt it should not, do you confirm that? + <gg0> (ssh connection here is kept alive) + <pere> my ssh connection went down, but /lib/rc/init.d was mounted while it + was active. + <pere> to me it look like umountfs isn't executed at all during shutdown. + <pere> oh, well. got to work on other things now. :) + <gg0> it's correct getting no messages if there no filesystem to umount + <gg0> as it wouldn't be run at all + <zigo> pere: Hey, thanks for uploading sysv-rc -48 ! :) + <pere> you are welcome. :) + <gg0> i can't reproduce it on a VM :/ http://paste.debian.net/plain/80658/ + <gg0> ehm no, same machive, successive halt + http://paste.debian.net/plain/80659/ + <gg0> got stuck + <pere> are there any testet sysvinit patches for hurd lingering? I plan to + upload a new version tonight or tomorrow. + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-08 + + <gg0> http://paste.debian.net/plain/80854/ + <gg0> expected? + <gg0> do tmpfs and procfs need to be shown as types /hurd/tmpfs and + /hurd/procfs? + <gg0> or can they be "normalized"? + <gg0> domount mount_noupdate tmpfs shmfs /run tmpfs + -onosuid,noexec,size=10%,mode=755 + <gg0> another one is why on linux options are nosuid,noexec ^, whereas on + hurd no-suid,no-exec,... ? + <rleigh> gg0: If they need generalising, we can add $nosuid/$noexec + etc. variables to mount-functions.sh and set them appropriately for the + currently platform. + <rleigh> current platform rather + <gg0> yeah, i ask just to understand what side people prefers modifying, in + this case hurd vs sysvinit + <gg0> btw in the meanwhile i got tmpfs takes options without '-' though it + shows them with '-' in proc/mounts + <gg0> rleigh: and thanks for pointing out what looking for, little hints + saves hours in my case :) + [IRC connection closed] + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-08 + + <youpi> gnu_srs: the -49 version of sysvinit contains a fix for bootlogd + + +### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-09 + + <gnu_srs> (16:31:17) <youpi>: gnu_srs: the -49 version of sysvinit contains + a fix for bootlogd + <gnu_srs> Nice for kFreeBSD, for Hurd it doesn't matter if we get a + segfault or an error code saying it's not implemented :-( + <youpi> segfault vs error code is really not the same + <youpi> iirc bootlogd would ignore the error + <gnu_srs> Nevertheless, bootlogd is not usable on Hurd :( + <youpi> then fix it + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-08 + + <rleigh> gg0: If the sames are set by hurd itself, then it makes sense to + adapt sysvinit to cope with that rather than altering hurd since that + would be a fairly major compatibility break. OTOH, adding support for the + Linux/FreeBSD names in addition to the hyphenated names would be good + from the point of view of better interoperability generally, not just for + sysvinit. + <rleigh> For now, getting sysvinit to support the Hurd names is easy + enough, and if you do add the Linux/FreeBSD names then the compatibility + stuff can be removed when that's available. + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-11 + + <gnu_srs> Hi, still problems with hurd console under openrc: console: + Console library initialization failed: Not a directory + <gnu_srs> and /dev/vcs is there + <youpi> gnu_srs: but is it a directory? + <gnu_srs> the output of console -d vga -d pc_mouse --repeat=mouse -d pc_kbd + --repeat=kbd -d generic_speaker -c /dev/vcs gives the response above + <gnu_srs> looks like /dev/vcs is a file. How to recreate the directory + content? + <gnu_srs> I thought it should not be removed with the latest sysvinit + package (-49) + <gnu_srs> from -48 changelog: Tell init.d/umountfs to not umount /dev/vcs, + as it break the console on Hurd. Patch from Samuel Thibault. + <youpi> gnu_srs: but did your reconfigure the hurd package to remount it ? + <gnu_srs> ? + <youpi> /dev/vcs won't magically be remounted by just not being unmounted + by sysvinit + <gnu_srs> dpkg-reconfigure hurd? + <youpi> sure + <gnu_srs> I can start the console manually, but ENABLE='true' in + /etc/default/hurd-console does not work (at least with openrc) + <youpi> does /dev/vcs becomes a mere file again with openrc? + <gnu_srs> no it's a directory with 6 entries + <youpi> does the /etc/init.d/hurd-console gets to starT? + <youpi> I'm afraid I'm really asking obvious questions that you should have + already asked for yourself + <gg0> so you mounted it and it's not a file anymore. does it work now? + <gnu_srs> it seem like the service is not started, trying to figure out + why:-D + <gnu_srs> I can restart it but it is not visible in rc-status? + + <gg0> shutdown stuck at "Asking all remaining processes to + terminate...done." (even before distupgrade btw) + <gg0> seems stuck at killall5 -18 + <teythoon> hm, that's bad + <teythoon> how do you know that ? + <gg0> /etc/init.d/sendsigs and /etc/init.d/killprocs + <gg0> (yes, switched to sysvinit and testing openrc) + <teythoon> but killall5 -18 is SIGSTOP right? + <teythoon> and if it says ...done. then killall5 has already been run + <teythoon> so, how do you know it hangs at killall5 ? + <gg0> teythoon: "done" is "log_action_end_msg 0" just after killall5 -15, + then we should get "Killing all remaining processes" or "All processes + ended within $seq seconds." + <gg0> Asking all remaining processes to terminate...killall5 -15 -o 956 # + SIGTERM...done. + <gg0> All processes ended within 1 seconds...done. + <gg0> shutdown properly this time + <teythoon> hm + <teythoon> fwiw, i've also encountered hangs, haven't investigated yet + <gg0> with openrc? + <teythoon> yes + + <gnu_srs> Is it so that with teythoons mtab translator umount -a unmounts + all passive translators, removing the translator records?? + <gnu_srs> causing pflocal (and pfinet) to disappear? + +[[hurd/translator/mtab/discussion]]. + + <azeem> gnu_srs: didn't he say that this is getting fixed in his latest + patchset? + <gnu_srs> yes, what about mine and gg0s currently hosed systems? + <gnu_srs> yes, but until the patch makes into the next release,** + <youpi> gnu_srs: pflocal and pfinet don't appear in mtab + <youpi> because they don't expose whole directories, just a trivial node + <youpi> so no, they won't get umounted by umount -a + <youpi> simply check the content of /proc/mounts + <gnu_srs> so how come I cannot recover my image? + <gnu_srs> and gg0 neither + <youpi> no idea, I've never tried openrc + <youpi> when daring new fields, you face new issues, that's no wonder + <gnu_srs> so this does not happen with sysv-rc? + <youpi> I haven't seen any of this kind of issue + <youpi> whether it's related to using openrc vs sysvrc, I have no idea + <youpi> but at least that's a candidate for sure + <gnu_srs> well in my case hurd bootstrap is stuck after ext2fs exec and + before init + <gnu_srs> ant reinstalling hurd via linux does not help + <youpi> you mean the hurd package? + <youpi> you can also try to reinstall the libc0.3 package + <youpi> normally it should be all that is needed for boot + <youpi> perhaps also some /dev entries + <gnu_srs> yes, the hurd package. I will try with libc0.3 tomorrow. Which + /dev entries, and how to create them manually? + <youpi> "perhaps" implies that I don't know + <youpi> you can as well just boot with an install CD, mount your disk, + chroot into it, and run dpkg-reconfigure hurd there to recreate + everything in /dv + <youpi> +e + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-13 + + <youpi> pere, rleigh: which script is supposed to make /etc/mtab a symlink + to /proc/mounts already? I can't find it + <pere> youpi: see /lib/init/mount-functions.sh + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-13 + + <braunr> teythoon: are the sysvinit debian packages in sid usable currently + ? + <teythoon> they are + <braunr> nice + <teythoon> youpi and pere have been busy polishing it quite a bit + <braunr> teythoon: and uhm, how does one enable sysvinit in debian ? :) + <braunr> ah, found pere's blog + <teythoon> braunr: didn't you read the postinst instructions ? :p + <teythoon> update-alternatives --config runsystem + <braunr> oh right + <braunr> got lost in the noise + <braunr> very nice + <braunr> still a few glitches i see, but it does the job + <braunr> although i'm not sure i like the lack of console prompt :/ + <braunr> i'll keep darnassus on the old runsystem until this is fixed + <teythoon> braunr: cp -p /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab + <teythoon> and kill -HUP 1 + <braunr> oh + <braunr> :) + <braunr> teythoon: thanks + <braunr> teythoon: do you know why there are three tmpfs instances after + startup (/run, and in addition, /run/shm and /run/lock) instead of one on + /run ? + <braunr> sorry for being so annoying :) + <teythoon> braunr: dunno, but that is what Debian does + <braunr> https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/RunDirectory explains it a + bit + <teythoon> root@thinkbox ~src # uname -s; mount | grep /run + <teythoon> Linux + <teythoon> tmpfs on /run type tmpfs + (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,size=306952k,mode=755) + <teythoon> tmpfs on /run/lock type tmpfs + (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=5120k) + <teythoon> tmpfs on /run/shm type tmpfs + (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime,size=613900k) + <braunr> i like this /run directory + <teythoon> yep, it's nice + <braunr> ah great, i can add ,sync=30 to fstab and it's added at boot time + :) + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-17 + + <congzhang> hi, I think we should make console server separate from + hurd-console + <congzhang> if DM want start, console server need be start first + <braunr> congzhang: send patches + <congzhang> and hurd-console mark it start at the end of sysinit? + <teythoon> congzhang: i agree + <braunr> teythoon: isn't hurd-console the console server ? + <congzhang> I want to check whether it is need first + <teythoon> braunr: yes, but congzhangs point is (as i understand it) that + the backend component should be started earlier + <teythoon> then again, i know little about the hurd console + <congzhang> no, if user enable one dispaly manager, then cycle dependence + happen + <braunr> why ? + <teythoon> i believe that is a different problem, namely that our + hurd-console init script depends on $all + <teythoon> pere: ^ + <congzhang> hurd-console Required-Start： $all + <braunr> ok + <braunr> yes that's a separate issue, and easier to understand + <congzhang> teythoon: if wdm Required-Start hurd-console, then insserv + can't generate the script order, right ? + <teythoon> congzhang: possibly, i don't know for sure + <congzhang> It doesn't work , and I rename to S??wdm to later one like + S20wdm + <congzhang> but insserv will regenerate the script order in /etc/rc2.d/, I + can't depend on that + <pere> congzhang: $all means after all scripts not depending on $all, and + not what the intuitive interpretation would tell you. + <pere> the current implementation order all scripts as if $all were not + present, and then move all scripts depending on $all to the last order + number+1. + <pere> because $all is misunderstood by most users, I strongly recommend to + _not_ use $all in any init.d script. + <congzhang> pere: so to make wdm to be number+more? + <pere> congzhang: make it depend on $all and be lexically sorted after + hurd-console. :) + <congzhang> wdm need start after hurd-console, if console-driver will run + when hurd-console start + <pere> not quite sure how startpar handle that case, so it might not work + the way you want anyway. + <pere> adding a dependency on hurd-console should not hurt, though. :) + <congzhang> how make it lexically sorted after hurd-console? + <pere> w is already after h in the alphabet. :) + <congzhang> that's trick! + <pere> but startpar uses the info in /etc/init.d/.depend.* (makefile style) + to order scripts, so check what the result is there too. + <braunr> congzhang: no it's not + <congzhang> that's just cache + <braunr> congzhang: ? + <congzhang> and generated from script head? + <congzhang> the right way is Adding run-time dependencies in script + <pere> congzhang: yes. insserv called from update-rc.d generate the + .depend.* files, and startpar reads the files (and ignore the headers) + when starting scripts. + <congzhang> if the script have cycle dependence, no one can help + <pere> congzhang: if there is a cycle, update-rc.d will reject the script. + <congzhang> sure, because the system current have not runable one + <congzhang> Display Manager run before hurd-console, and never successful + for X stared failed! + <pere> what is this hurd-console stuff, btw? it sound like somthing that + should be started in rcboot.d (aka rcS.d on Debian). + <congzhang> if you install wdm, you will notice that wdm start failed + <pere> should it run before sulogin when booting into single user? + <congzhang> hurd-console mix too much thins + <teythoon> pere: it's the console multiplexes that provides /dev/tty? + <congzhang> just part of that function + <teythoon> pere: it's like screen or tmux a server-client architecture + <teythoon> the x server gets keyboard and mouse events from it iirc + <pere> right. so not needed by sulogin, I guess. because if it was, it + should start in rcS.d, not rc[2-5].d/. + <congzhang> and also start /bin/console to start keyboard and mouse driver + <teythoon> /bin/console is the frontend + <pere> and if it started in rcS.d/, it would always be started before + wdm. :) + <braunr> i think it should be started in rcS.d + <congzhang> why not essential? + <pere> braunr: when I tried, it failed. + <congzhang> https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/console.html + <congzhang> teythoon: i want to make one disk img with default DM, and face + these problem + <braunr> pere: do you have a log of the failur e? + <congzhang> teythoon: I know you are working on the hurd init system, so I + ask you for help + <pere> braunr: only the boot message: Starting Hurd console multiplexer: + hurd-console failed! + <pere> braunr: how can I learn more? + <braunr> i don't know any easy way + <braunr> try to put the system in its early state manually + <braunr> and maybe run rpctrace on the actual console command + <braunr> if that is what really fails + <congzhang> and I found that pc_kbd may have some bug? I have high + frequence of start failed if I make it start + <congzhang> but I can't located the real source of these problem + <teythoon> pere: the console logs some messages to syslog + <pere> teythoon: looked, nothing there. :( + <pere> gah, look like I broke my hurd machine. Added rpctrace to the start + of hurd-console, and now the boot just hang there, and when I interrupt + it the kernel reboot the entire machine. :( + <braunr> pere: use rpctrace manually, don't script it + <teythoon> oh yeah, seen this as well + <pere> braunr: well, no use to test it after boot when it hang during + boot... + <teythoon> it triggers an assertion in the proc server iirc + <braunr> pere: that doesn't imply you need to script it + <congzhang> pere: qemu snapshot mode will be your friend:) + <braunr> ideally, i'd run the init system automatically up to the point i + want to run my test, and make it spawn a shell, and use that shell then + <pere> congzhang: hah. real men do to take backups. but they weep a + lot. :) + <congzhang> teythoon: runsystem.sysv has work well on my machine, just some + error infomation + <teythoon> good + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-21 + + <gnu_srs1> Hi, a general question: is ptrace available for GNU/Hurd? + <teythoon> yes + <gnu_srs1> tks, the openrc developers are working on process supervision + using it: good/bad? (compared to cgroups) + <teythoon> uh + <teythoon> i prefer the cgroups approach + <teythoon> but upstart also uses ptrace to keep track of the 'main' process + of an daemon + <teythoon> they use ptrace to follow a daemon that double forks + <gnu_srs1> teythoon: and regarding portability? + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-24 + + <braunr> sysvinit doesn't seem to handle /etc/default/locale into + consideration + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-25 + + <gg0> how about switching runsystem.sysv by default? + <youpi> now that it seems to be running fine, we could do that, yes + + +# Required Interfaces + +In the thread starting +[here](http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/07/threads.html#00269), a +[message](http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/07/msg00281.html) has been +posted that contains the following list (no claim for completeness) of +interfaces that are used in (two source code files of) systemd: + + * cgroups + * namespaces + * selinux + * autofs4 + * capabilities + * udev + * oom score adjust + * RLIMIT_RTTIME + * RLIMIT_RTPRIO + * ionice + * SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK + * /proc/$PID/stat + * fanotify + * inotify + * TIOCVHANGUP + * IP_TRANSPORT + * audit + * F_SETPIPE_SZ + * CLONE_xxx + * BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG + * PR_SET_NAME + * PR_CAPBSET_DROP + * PR_SET_PDEATHSIG + * PR_GET_SECUREBITS + * /proc/$PID/comm + * /proc/$PID/cmdline + * /proc/cmdline + * numerous GNU APIs like asprintf + * [[SOCK_CLOEXEC, O_CLOEXEC|secure_file_descriptor_handling]] + * /proc/$PID/fd + * /dev/tty0 + * TIOCLINUX + * VT_ACTIVATE + * TIOCNXCL + * KDSKBMODE + * /dev/random + * /dev/char/ + * openat() and friends + * /proc/$PID/root + * waitid() + * /dev/disk/by-label/ + * /dev/disk/by-uuid/ + * /sys/class/tty/console/active + * /sys/class/dmi/id + * /proc/$PID/cgroup + * \033[3J + * /dev/rtc + * settimeofday() and its semantics |