Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#40760 - [filesystem] Handle the case of ro /sys

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Leonid Isaev (lisaev) - Sunday, 08 June 2014, 20:08 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Sunday, 15 June 2014, 00:59 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

The filesystem package contains /sys directory. On update, pacman will skip it, but err out if /sys is a mountpoint which contains a ro filesystem. This is the case in LXC containers (sourceforge lxc) and also systemd-nspawn.

Is it possible to move creation of /sys (and possibly /proc) to the install file? I'm attaching the pacman debug log and a patch against current SVN.

Thanks.
   fs.log (19.6 KiB)
   fix-proc-sys-in-lxc.patch (0.6 KiB)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Sunday, 15 June 2014, 00:59 GMT
Reason for closing:  Deferred
Additional comments about closing:  Will be fixed in pacman
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Sunday, 08 June 2014, 20:31 GMT
Well, 2 problems, I think: The error is harmless, and it only affects containers. Dropping package ownership of a root level directory seems like a bad idea, as the cost of getting it back is "high". Furthermore, this seems more like something worth dealing with in pacman. It doesn't seem to complain about rw mountpoints, so why does it complain specifically about ro mountpoints?
Comment by Leonid Isaev (lisaev) - Sunday, 08 June 2014, 21:14 GMT
> The error is harmless, and it only affects containers. Dropping package ownership of a root level directory seems like a bad idea, as the cost of getting it back is "high".

Yes, I understand the concern.

> Furthermore, this seems more like something worth dealing with in pacman.

You likely know about this pacman bug already: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38615?project=3 . Probably the only solution to that is for pacman to quit because removal of the old package is impossible (so it shouldn't touch the package database). But in this case the update can't succeed...
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Sunday, 08 June 2014, 23:55 GMT
@Dave: don't we handle this in pacman-git already? I seem to recall we do very little with mountpoint directories now.
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Monday, 09 June 2014, 00:04 GMT
Seems you're right. pacman doesn't complain when I install filesystem after remounting /sys RO.
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Monday, 09 June 2014, 16:06 GMT
So this is already handled for Pacman 4.2 and we don't want to make changes to the filesystem package. Can we close this?
Comment by Leonid Isaev (lisaev) - Monday, 09 June 2014, 17:12 GMT
Yes, sounds good to me... Thanks.

Loading...