I see the following when I run journalctl -g fail
systemd-logind.service: bpf-firewall: Attaching egress BPF program to cgroup
/sys/fs/cgroup/system.slice/systemd-logind.service failed: Invalid argument
systemd-userdbd.service: bpf-firewall: Attaching egress BPF program to cgroup
/sys/fs/cgro
On Fr, 22.07.22 12:15, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
> > I guess that would mean holding on to cgroup1 support until EOY 2023
> > or thereabout?
>
> That does sound OK to me. We can mark it deprecated before though,
> i.e. generate warnings, and remove it from docs, as long as t
On Fr, 22.07.22 12:37, Wols Lists (antli...@youngman.org.uk) wrote:
> On 22/07/2022 11:15, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > I guess that would mean holding on to cgroup1 support until EOY 2023
> > > or thereabout?
>
> > That does sound OK to me. We can mark it deprecated before though,
> > i.e. gen
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 06:14:11PM +0530, Ani A wrote:
> Found the issue, posting here to close this thread (and possibly help
> someone who might land in this situation!)
Thanks for sharing.
> The daemon which had issues with rate-limit, was invoking some
> `systemctl stop/start `
> commands i
On 22/07/2022 11:15, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I guess that would mean holding on to cgroup1 support until EOY 2023
or thereabout?
That does sound OK to me. We can mark it deprecated before though,
i.e. generate warnings, and remove it from docs, as long as the actual
code stays around until t
Hi Michal,
Found the issue, posting here to close this thread (and possibly help
someone who might land in this situation!)
The daemon which had issues with rate-limit, was invoking some
`systemctl stop/start `
commands in its initialization! (probably this has some unwanted side effects?)
If I
On Do, 21.07.22 16:24, Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I believe Christian may have relayed some of this already but on my
> side, as much as I can sympathize with the annoyance of having to
> support both cgroup1 and cgroup2 side by side, I feel that we're sadly
> no
Hello,
I am trying to retrieve an sd_bus_message using the 'ret' argument of
sd_bus_process().
The documentation says the following:
sd_bus_process() processes at most one incoming message per call. If
the parameter ret is not NULL and the call processed a message, *ret
is set to this mes
On Do, 21.07.22 11:55, Christian Brauner (brau...@kernel.org) wrote:
> In general, I wouldn't mind dropping cgroup1 support in the future.
>
> The only thing I immediately kept thinking about is what happens to
> workloads that have a v1 cgroup layout on the host possibly with an
> older systemd r
