1 |
Marc Joliet posted on Wed, 20 May 2015 10:01:13 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> A few days ago I finally got around to giving systemd-networkd a whirl, |
4 |
> as I said I would in the sub-thread started by Rich. It turns out that |
5 |
> it fulfils the needs of my computers just fine, and has (together with |
6 |
> systemd-resolved) fully replaced netctl. The only thing I'm not sure of |
7 |
> is how extensive IPv6 support is. The man page suggests that only |
8 |
> DHCPv6 is supported, but not stateless configuration. Not that my LAN |
9 |
> has IPv6, but it'd be nice to know how future proof it is. |
10 |
|
11 |
I don't recall whether you mentioned whether you're running stable or |
12 |
~arch, and I didn't see mention of the version of systemd you're running |
13 |
now, but FWIW... |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm ~arch, but am still on systemd-218 (-r3), while 219 is latest ~arch. |
16 |
This is for two reasons you may find interesting, one of which pertains |
17 |
to networkd and thus to the quoted bit, above: |
18 |
|
19 |
Networkd: 219's networkd apparently breaks at least some (maybe static-IP- |
20 |
only?) IPv4 only setups. There's a complaint about lack of IPv6 support |
21 |
(duh! it's disabled on purpose as I don't use it, to avoid having to |
22 |
worry about securing it!), and the interface is not brought up. The |
23 |
upstream bug (filed by someone else, with another report as well before |
24 |
mine, making me the third person reporting being affected) and gentoo bug |
25 |
(mine) are: |
26 |
|
27 |
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90103 |
28 |
|
29 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548380 |
30 |
|
31 |
So far no comment from upstream, but at least I know others are seeing it |
32 |
too. The original reporter had disabled IPv6 with a kernel boot |
33 |
parameter, which hints at a more mainstream distro with a prebuilt binary |
34 |
kernel and modules shipped, while I have CONFIG_IPV6 unset in my of |
35 |
course custom-configured-and-built kernel here on gentoo. |
36 |
|
37 |
So contrary to your wondering, IPv4 support in the present and near- |
38 |
future may actually be a rather more pressing concern than IPv6 in the |
39 |
longer-term future. =:^( |
40 |
|
41 |
Hopefully that bug will be fixed for 220, as broken network connectivity |
42 |
is rather critical, but the lack of even a developer comment in the month |
43 |
since filing isn't particularly encouraging. But I have a static IP |
44 |
assigned and since I switched to systemd a version or two before the |
45 |
introduction of networkd, and was using a simple custom network.service |
46 |
unit at that time (not too difficult and easily enough googled, with a |
47 |
static IP), I figure worst-case, I simply dig that up again... Tho I |
48 |
really can't imagine them leaving IPv4 broken, even if it's only for |
49 |
people who don't have IPv6 enabled. |
50 |
|
51 |
One reporter did say he was able to bring up his network manually. I |
52 |
didn't try that; I simply reverted to 218 and have masked succeeding 219+ |
53 |
versions after trying them and not finding a fix. But that does indicate |
54 |
that my alternative network.service approach should work. |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
Meanwhile, the second bug affecting me in systemd-219... |
58 |
|
59 |
Btrfs and tmpfiles.d: systemd-219 was supposed to add better btrfs |
60 |
support, since btrfs and in particular its subvolume support figures so |
61 |
strongly in the systemd "big picture" plan. Unfortunately, systemd's |
62 |
first rollout of btrfs specific features has a few bugs, the one I ran |
63 |
across involving the new tmpfiles.d btrfs specific features. |
64 |
|
65 |
In 219, systemd/tmpfiles.d introduces support for a new type key-letter, |
66 |
"v". On "legacy" filesystems, "v" is supposed to act just like "d", |
67 |
create the given directory if it doesn't exist yet. On btrfs, however, |
68 |
"v" creates a subvolume at that location instead, relying on the fact |
69 |
that btrfs subvolumes normally function much like directories, except |
70 |
with a few btrfs-specific features that normal directories don't have. |
71 |
|
72 |
And 219 ships a couple tmpfiles.d dropin files that make use of "v" in |
73 |
place of "d", creating subvolumes on new btrfs where they (or |
74 |
directories) don't already exist, while it creates directories on |
75 |
"legacy" filesystems. |
76 |
|
77 |
The problem? An attempted directory-create of an existing directory, on |
78 |
a read-only filesystem (my / is kept read-only by default, I only mount |
79 |
it read-write to update it), succeeds. An attempted subvolume create, |
80 |
where there's an existing (normal) directory, on a read-only (btrfs) |
81 |
filesystem, fails. |
82 |
|
83 |
With that failure, systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service, run at boot (pulled in |
84 |
by sysinit.target), fails. |
85 |
|
86 |
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90281 |
87 |
|
88 |
Status: resolved/fixed, with the git commit listed/linked, less than two |
89 |
weeks after filing. =:^) Tho of course a release with the fix hasn't yet |
90 |
been made, and a fix in under two weeks there without even a comment in |
91 |
over a month on the IPv4-only bug doesn't bode so well for the latter. |
92 |
=:^( |
93 |
|
94 |
Of course a quick edit of the affected tmpfiles.d files, turning "v" to |
95 |
"d" where appropriate, would work around this issue, and now there's a |
96 |
patch-fix I could apply pretty easily as well, but I haven't bothered due |
97 |
to the above networkd bug. I've simply masked each new 219+ ebuild after |
98 |
trying it to see if the two bugs are fixed yet, and thus remain on 218 |
99 |
for now. |
100 |
|
101 |
So while 218 worked well for me, 219 has been rough and remains masked, |
102 |
here. We'll see how 220 turns out, when it's released and a gentoo ebuild |
103 |
for it becomes available... |
104 |
|
105 |
-- |
106 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
107 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
108 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |