21.11.2024 20:47, Phillip Susi wrote:
Andrei Borzenkov writes:
commit 142b8142d7bb84f07ac33fc00527a4d48ac8ef9f
Author: Tom Yan
Date: Wed Jan 9 23:35:24 2019 +0800
mount/generators: do not make unit wanted by its device unit
As device units will be reloaded by systemd whenever th
Andrei Borzenkov writes:
> commit 142b8142d7bb84f07ac33fc00527a4d48ac8ef9f
> Author: Tom Yan
> Date: Wed Jan 9 23:35:24 2019 +0800
>
> mount/generators: do not make unit wanted by its device unit
>
> As device units will be reloaded by systemd whenever the
> corresponding device genera
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:55 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Furthermore, it seems that the undesirable auto mounting behavior only
> happens with systemd-239 and lower. Newer versions of systemd seem to
> have dropped this behavior by not setting the WantedBy=foo.device on the
> mount point. I assu
On Di, 19.11.24 01:45, Nils Kattenbeck (nilskem...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 1:00 AM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > On Do, 14.11.24 14:25, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Lennart Poettering writes:
> > >
> > > > the BLKFLSBUF ioctl() works fine on block
Lennart Poettering writes:
> Huh? Even after? Like, *forever*??? What's the point of that? Is
> gparted supposed to break your system for good and render your block
> devices unusable?
>
> I thought it was a partitioner, but I might have gotten that wrong?
Just because you move or resize a parti
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 1:00 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> On Do, 14.11.24 14:25, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
>
> > Lennart Poettering writes:
> >
> > > the BLKFLSBUF ioctl() works fine on block device fds open for read only.
> >
> > Oh, I might have to change that to use a read o
On Do, 14.11.24 14:25, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > the BLKFLSBUF ioctl() works fine on block device fds open for read only.
>
> Oh, I might have to change that to use a read only open then.
>
> > I am not following anymore. As *long* *as* *the* lock
Lennart Poettering writes:
> the BLKFLSBUF ioctl() works fine on block device fds open for read only.
Oh, I might have to change that to use a read only open then.
> I am not following anymore. As *long* *as* *the* lock is taken the
> auto mounting doesn't happen. Once you release the lock then
On Mo, 11.11.24 08:34, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> >> I'm reading between the lines a bit, but my guess is that libparted
> >> always opens the device writable in case you start issuing actual
> >> partitioning commands.
> >
> > That sounds like a bug
Lennart Poettering writes:
>> I'm reading between the lines a bit, but my guess is that libparted
>> always opens the device writable in case you start issuing actual
>> partitioning commands.
>
> That sounds like a bug though. They should open the device for write
> only when they need to make c
On Do, 31.10.24 12:08, Dan Nicholson (d...@endlessos.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:23 AM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > On Do, 31.10.24 09:03, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Lennart Poettering writes:
> > >
> > > Yes, but then it reads the disk and auto mounts
31.10.2024 16:03, Phillip Susi wrote:
Lennart Poettering writes:
Doing the locking on the fd you use for writing makes things a lot
easier, because as mentioned udev will automatically retrigger block
devices if an inotify event on it is seen that indicates
"close-after-write". If you deal wit
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:23 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> On Do, 31.10.24 09:03, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
>
> > Lennart Poettering writes:
> >
> > Yes, but then it reads the disk and auto mounts a partition just because
> > someone ran parted print. Printing the partition ta
On Do, 31.10.24 09:03, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > Doing the locking on the fd you use for writing makes things a lot
> > easier, because as mentioned udev will automatically retrigger block
> > devices if an inotify event on it is seen that indicat
Lennart Poettering writes:
> Doing the locking on the fd you use for writing makes things a lot
> easier, because as mentioned udev will automatically retrigger block
> devices if an inotify event on it is seen that indicates
> "close-after-write". If you deal with multiple fds you need to make
On Di, 29.10.24 08:28, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > It prevents it fully. However, udev installs an inotify watch on all
> > relevant block devices, which watches for IN_CLOSE_WRITE events, and
> > then triggers the device again. IN_CLOSE_WRITE is th
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 6:28 AM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> So if you want to prevent automounting entirely you have to... open the
> disk device read only and take the bsd lock, and hold it until after
> closing the write file descriptor? Plus probably a little more time to
> give udev a chance to t
Lennart Poettering writes:
> It prevents it fully. However, udev installs an inotify watch on all
> relevant block devices, which watches for IN_CLOSE_WRITE events, and
> then triggers the device again. IN_CLOSE_WRITE is the event that is
> generated when an inode is closed after it was open for
Lennart Poettering writes:
> systemd is downstream to udev. If udev doesn't process a block device
> because of the taken BSD file lock on the main block device, then
> systemd (and other downstreams of udev) won't get such notificaitons
> either. And thus won't automount.
The BSD lock does not
On Do, 24.10.24 15:43, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > systemd is downstream to udev. If udev doesn't process a block device
> > because of the taken BSD file lock on the main block device, then
> > systemd (and other downstreams of udev) won't get such
On Mi, 23.10.24 14:32, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote:
> A few years ago you mentioned that gparted should not be masking mount
> units and should instead take a bsd lock:
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2020-January/043924.html
>
> I brought this issue back up re
A few years ago you mentioned that gparted should not be masking mount
units and should instead take a bsd lock:
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2020-January/043924.html
I brought this issue back up recently. It seems like taking a bsd lock
would allow gparted to make sure t
22 matches
Mail list logo
