Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 20:15 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:17 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 23:28 +0100, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > > > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 22:44 +0100, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > > > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 21:20 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 11/01/2012 09:08 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I know, I KNOW this is an 11th hour request. Can we please
> > > > > > > > > get Serge's
> > > > > > > > > autodev stuff into this release? Please?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > release early, release often?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > just release current git as 0.8.0 now, and the one with the
> > > > > > > > autofoo as
> > > > > > > > 0.8.1 soon after that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That would be ideal but we've been sitting at 0.8.0rc2 for
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > like 3-1/2 months now. I know Daniel (the other Daniel, the
> > > > > > > Daniel) has
> > > > > > > been incredibly busy. I have no objection to getting this out
> > > > > > > the door
> > > > > > > as 0.8.0 with a fast bump to 0.8.1 for the systemd stuff, but
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > several months is not good. Can we get this fast bump? We'll be
> > > > > > > staring Fedora 18 in the face by then. The working versions of
> > > > > > > Fedora
> > > > > > > are no longer in support and we've got more distros adopting
> > > > > > > systemd.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think this will end up slated for 0.9.0 (which we're hoping will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > soon), but in any case I went ahead and created a branch at
> > > > > > git://github.com/hallyn/lxc called upstream.nov1.2012.autodev, with
> > > > > > an autodev patch on top of Daniel's latest push.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I quickly tried my hand at fixing the error you had with /dev/ttyN.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > haven't tested that bit. I will not be able to be online at all
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > now until weekend or monday, so if it needs more tweaks please feel
> > > > > > free to 'just fix it'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Problem. Works for the systemd containers but not for my older
> > > > > containers. I get this...
> > > > >
> > > > > [root@forest Plover]# cat 2012-10-30-18:17:46.log
> > > > > lxc-start 1351635466.998 ERROR lxc_conf - Operation not
> > > > > permitted - error 1 creating /usr/lib64/lxc/rootfs/dev/tty6
> > > > >
> > > > > lxc-start 1351635466.999 ERROR lxc_conf - failed to setup
> > > > > the ttys for 'Plover'
> > > > > lxc-start 1351635466.999 ERROR lxc_start - failed to setup
> > > > > the container
> > > > > lxc-start 1351635466.999 ERROR lxc_sync - invalid sequence
> > > > > number 1. expected 2
> > > > > lxc-start 1351635466.999 ERROR lxc_start - failed to spawn
> > > > > 'Plover'
> > > > >
> > > > > Alcove (the systemd container) was the first one started so it may be
> > > > > an
> > > > > ordinal thing or it may be a systemd thing. But it's a problem.
> > > > \
> > > > Hm, perhaps the container doesn't have mknod?
> >
> > > They all should have, but I will investigate. Those devices would have
> > > existed in the static file system with /dev. Could it be a problem with
> > > the device already existing in the /dev directory?
> >
> > Ok... Now this is just bloody weird. I do not understand this.
> >
> > Yes the containers come up. But...
> >
> > Here's what shows up in the detached container's log...
> >
> > [root@forest Audience]# cat 2012-10-30-18:52:41.log
> > lxc-start 1351637562.011 ERROR lxc_conf - Operation not permitted
> > - error creating /usr/lib64/lxc/rootfs/dev/tty6
>
> > Now wait a minute... What about 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5??? They succeeded
> > but 6 failed? How does that make any sense. In the container...
>
> > crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 5, 0 Apr 13 2006 tty
> > crw--w---- 1 root tty 136, 16 Oct 30 2012 tty1
> > crw--w---- 1 root tty 136, 17 Oct 30 2012 tty2
> > crw--w---- 1 root tty 136, 18 Oct 30 2012 tty3
> > crw--w---- 1 root tty 136, 19 Oct 30 2012 tty4
> > crw--w---- 1 root tty 136, 20 Oct 30 2012 tty5
> > crw--w---- 1 root tty 136, 21 Oct 30 2012 tty6
>
> > Ok... That's probably from a couple of days ago. But no error messages
> > for the others and they are not "freshly made" either... That was a
> > CentOS 5 container.
>
> > Trying it with another Fedora container but removed the tty? entries.
> > No errors. Hmmm... Wait... Another problem... Container "Plover"...
>
> > [mhw@plover ~]$ who
> > mhw pts/9 2012-10-30 19:47 (forest.ip6.wittsend.com)
> > [mhw@plover ~]$ sudo -s
> > sudo: sorry, you must have a tty to run sudo
>
> > What?
>
> Ok... The problem with the container "plover" appears to have been an
> error on my part. I think I cleaned out too many tty devices.
>
> Carefully only removed tty? devices from the static /dev in that
> container and started it up...
>
> [root@forest Plover]# cat 2012-10-31-06:41:37.log
> lxc-start 1351680097.900 ERROR lxc_conf - Operation not permitted -
> error creating /usr/lib64/lxc/rootfs/dev/tty6
>
> Still got the error creating /dev/tty6 but not 1-5.
>
> But wait. In the container itself...
>
> [mhw@canyon mhw]$ ssh plover.ip6.wittsend.com
> Last login: Tue Oct 30 18:40:12 2012 from canyon.ip6.wittsend.com
> [mhw@plover ~]$ sudo -s
> [root@plover mhw]# ls -l /dev/tty?
> crw-------. 1 root root 136, 36 Oct 31 06:41 /dev/tty1
> crw-------. 1 root root 136, 37 Oct 31 06:41 /dev/tty2
> crw-------. 1 root root 136, 38 Oct 31 06:41 /dev/tty3
> crw-------. 1 root root 136, 39 Oct 31 06:41 /dev/tty4
> crw-------. 1 root root 136, 40 Oct 31 06:41 /dev/tty5
> crw-------. 1 root root 136, 41 Oct 31 06:41 /dev/tty6
>
> So it gave an error but did actual work.
What error is it giving? Does it list the errno?
> I've got this narrowed down... If "devtty" is defined you do one thing
> and, if not, you drop into the autodev logic. Is that correct? If I
devtty can be used with autodev = 1, and was working fine for me in
ubuntu containers using autodev = 1. I just need to see if I can
better consolidate those codepaths.
> use devtty, then the INFO dump says "0 ttys created and, in fact, none
> are, so I guess I don't know how to use that parameter.
If you say
lxc.devtty = joe
then lxc will create a directory /dev/joe in the container, create
/dev/joe/console and /dev/joe/tty{1-N}, bind mount the host ptys
to those, and then symlink those into /dev. The purpose of this
sad hackery is to allow package upgrades which want to do
rm /dev/console
MAKEDEV /dev/console
to succeed. If lxc has bind-mounted the lxc consoles onto /dev/console
directly, then 'rm /dev/console' fails because you can't delete the
mount target.
(This of course results in bad console until a restart with lxc, but
let's the container upgrade succeed. Device namespaces, where are you?)
-serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn Central: Instant, anywhere, Remote PC access and management.
Stay in control, update software, and manage PCs from one command center
Diagnose problems and improve visibility into emerging IT issues
Automate, monitor and manage. Do more in less time with Central
http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein12331_d2d
_______________________________________________
Lxc-devel mailing list
Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
