Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Branko Badrljica <brankob@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: what happened to /etc/init.d/hal{d,daemon,whatever} script ?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:41:21
Message-Id: 495079D0.5060704@avtomatika.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: what happened to /etc/init.d/hal{d,daemon,whatever} script ? by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 Duncan wrote:
2 > Branko Badrljica <brankob@××××××××××.com> posted
3 > 494F1518.2020109@××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on Mon, 22 Dec 2008
4 > 05:18:32 +0100:
5 >
6 >
7 >> Maybe I should have filed this as a bug, but don't have a clue to which
8 >> package should I assign it, if any.
9 >>
10 >
11 > FWIW, this would have been a perfect question for the gentoo-desktop
12 > list, but doesn't really belong on the -dev list. There's also the
13 > gentoo-user list, altho that one has very heavy volume so you might not
14 > wish to subscribe there.
15
16 Well, regarding the actual error, i think it might interest someone
17 here, also.
18 Although I mentioned just baselayout and openrc, I did check ( end
19 reemerged etc) hal also, and it indeed emerged _without_ /etc/init.d/hald.
20
21 I tracked it down to root cause: Although I don't use it, I have
22 compiled-in selinux support ( and selinux=0 as kernel start parameter).
23 When I was makeconfiging my kernel, I saw also SMACK support, read info
24 and thought "what the heck, it can't hurt me, but I might want to play
25 with it", so I compiled-in that, too.
26
27 Then after some time I realised that I never got to actually used all
28 that and changed my config file by cutting out that all that security stuff.
29 And recompiled all my kernels accordingly.
30 Around that time I saw people recommending using tmpfs for /var/tmp as
31 this would speed-up emerges etc, so I did that.
32
33 I didn't know that while I was on SMACK (pun intended) , machine would
34 add extended attr to every file machine would write. ( It was SMACK64 in
35 security domain ).
36
37 After cleaning my system, even though those attributes were still on all
38 files, everything was fine until I actually tried to copy something from
39 that FS to some other FS.
40 /bin/cp would realise that there are extra security attrs on a file and
41 would try to duplicate them on a copy. And since new kernel was without
42 SMACK support, it would fail.
43
44 When emerging stuff with /var/tmp on tmpfs, /bin/cp seems to get rarely
45 used in such way when copying stuff into /var/tmp or maybe it was
46 because distfiles were without SMACK attrs- so most ebuilds would
47 seemingly sucseed. Most errors seem tho have been made when ebuild
48 needed some local data, usually in /etc that had SMACK64 attr. If
49 /bin/cp was used to get that data, it would fail, but this would not
50 stop the ebuild. It would usually finished its work just as if nothing
51 happened.
52
53 Once I unmounted /var/tmp, ebuild could finish normally. Also, after
54 removing security attr from all files, ebuild has started working
55 normally from tmpfs partition again.
56
57 It is also interesting that on 2.6.27* kernel ebuild fails sometimes
58 and when it fails, it does so silently most of the time. With newest
59 2.6.28-rc9 i couldn't emerge a thing...
60
61 Since I might not be the only tinkerer on Gentoo to try stuff like that
62 and since it took me a day to find this, maybe it wouldn't hurt to check
63 for this kind of thing in portage ?
64 At the very least failed cp should stop emerge...

Replies