Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:50:41 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linprocfs and linux_base port upgrade Message-ID: <20060221215041.GB22713@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060221213812.GA69006@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <59887930@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20060221210659.GA64256@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060221213812.GA69006@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:38:12PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:07:00PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:52:05PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > Hi! > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Assume that one has a linux_base port installed and linprocfs is > > > mounted. The task is to upgrade the linux_base port. We do: > > > - Un-mounting linprocfs; > > > - deletting /compat/linux (along /compat/linux/proc); > > > - ... > > >=20 > > > The problem: a short period of time (well, it may be not so short > > > accoring to various curcumstances) exists when there _is no_ > > > /compat/linux/proc directory and linprocfs _is_ defined at > > > /etc/fstab. If something goes wrong when upgrading (system panic, port > > > upgrading errors, etc) one can get an unbootable machine. > > >=20 > > > I think that a linux_base port should: > > > - comment the linprocfs definition right after removing > > > /compat/linux/proc directory; > > > - remove the comment after creating the needed directory. > > >=20 > > > The comment itself should be a readable and unique one (ie all > > > linux_base ports should use the same text). Ex.: > > > "#*linux_base autocomment*". > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Do you have some other ideas? > >=20 > > Actually, this unmount ... remount situation is pretty evil. For > > example, it prevents users from building linux_base in a jail. In > > fact I'd like to switch to building packages in jails instead of > > chroots on the package cluster, but this is the major reason I can't. >=20 > Not to mention that the umount isn't always reliable for some reason: > the linux_base-8 package build often fails with this: >=20 > =3D=3D=3D> Checking if emulators/linux_base-8 already installed > Un-mounting linprocfs... > kern.fallback_elf_brand: -1 -> 3 > redhat-release-8.0-8.noarch.rpm > glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm > glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm > setup-2.5.20-1.noarch.rpm > filesystem-2.1.6-5.noarch.rpm > unpacking of archive failed on file /proc: cpio: chown failed - Operation= not supported > *** Error code 1 I've also had issues where trying to build a native jdk in a chroot. The problem is that the chroot in question doesn't have the necessicary fstab entries so procfs get unmounted, but not remounted. Installing linux_base in a prior invocation (also required on amd64 due to the ARCH override) and mounting and unmounting the chroot's /compat/linux/proc before and after every port build seems to work OK. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD+4sxXY6L6fI4GtQRAj0gAKDVNsa3PwUrf1p49P1vt3zYq9fjbQCgrOsg kPgKhp7h5UKsoTicXyqXaqE= =PRyC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060221215041.GB22713>