This was a bug fixed in the upstart package. Please don't move it
around.
** Package changed: ifupdown (Ubuntu Karmic) => upstart (Ubuntu Karmic)
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug notification because you are a membe
** Package changed: upstart (Ubuntu Karmic) => ifupdown (Ubuntu Karmic)
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing li
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 02:24:12PM -, Martin Pitt wrote:
> What I wonder about is how machines without a lo interface could have
> ever worked sensibly -- you will not even get to gdm without one. Is
> there something else which hardcodes bringing up lo during boot?
So the full story here is t
slangasek: should the rc-sysinit/network race bug be reopened, following
up on keybuk's
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/461725/comments/15 ?
ttx: no, that bug is fixed; the regression has really only been
confirmed on systems with a broken network config
--
rc-sysinit
I subscribed ubuntu-sru to bug 497299 now, and read it.
What I wonder about is how machines without a lo interface could have
ever worked sensibly -- you will not even get to gdm without one. Is
there something else which hardcodes bringing up lo during boot?
Since that seems to have caused real
No, you're wrong.
This causes a major regression and should be reverted
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing l
As commented in bug #497299, this is an inevitable problem on systems
with broken /etc/network/interfaces configurations if we want to address
the race condition described in this bug. I don't think it should block
the SRU publication, but that's a call that should be made by the member
of the SRU
This "fix" leads to another bug I found:
- event net-device-up IFACE=lo never comes up (I don't use dnsmasq)
- no init-scripts are executed after this "fix", worked before
I opended a bug report for this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/497299
$ ifconfig lo
loLink encap:Local Loopback
This bug was fixed in the package upstart - 0.6.3-11
---
upstart (0.6.3-11) karmic-proposed; urgency=low
* Make rc-sysinit.conf wait on the loopback interface, to ensure that the
interface is up before we process the scripts in /etc/rc?.d. LP: #461725.
-- Steve LangasekTue
** Tags added: verification-done
** Tags removed: verification-needed
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Validation against the dnsmasq issue:
Setting 127.0.0.1 as one of the /etc/resolv.conf nameservers, artificially
slowing down lo coming up (add a sleep in a if-pre-up.d script).
Without karmic-proposed:
"grep dnsmasq /var/log/syslog" shows "using nameserver 127.0.0.1#53"
With karmic-proposed:
"g
(copied to lucid)
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu Karmic)
Status: Fix Released => Fix Committed
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu Lucid)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this b
This bug was fixed in the package upstart - 0.6.3-11
---
upstart (0.6.3-11) karmic-proposed; urgency=low
* Make rc-sysinit.conf wait on the loopback interface, to ensure that the
interface is up before we process the scripts in /etc/rc?.d. LP: #461725.
-- Steve LangasekTue
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/karmic-proposed/upstart
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists
Accepted upstart into karmic-proposed, the package will build now and be
available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to
enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu Karmic)
upstart 0.6.3-11 uploaded to karmic-proposed (candidate for copying to
lucid once built & alpha-1 is out of the way).
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu Karmic)
Status: Fix Committed => In Progress
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Triaged
** Also affects: upstart (Ubuntu Karmic)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: upstart (Ubuntu Lucid)
Importance: Medium
Status: Triaged
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu Lucid)
Status: Tria
** Branch linked: lp:~ubuntu-core-dev/upstart/ubuntu
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@list
Jamie,
> start on net-device-added INTERFACE=lo
This is a separate bug in ufw: even after fixing this bug, there is no
guarantee that ufw will have finished initializing before upstart starts
to bring up other services in parallel. You need to change this instead
to something like (untested): 's
I should also mention that it is also desirable that ufw start before
any physical devices are brought up (eg when an admin wants to block
dhcp packets from all but a specific server).
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this bug
I just came across this bug, wrt ufw. Traditionally, it has been
expected that lo would be up before network daemons had started (eg,
runlevel 2). It has become common practice to use an ifupdown script to
bring up a firewall when lo is brought up. Ufw uses this practice and
has the following in it
More context from the dnsmasq side of things:
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
discuss/2009q4/003369.html
Missing from the public archive is the result of adding "ip addr show"
to the dnsmasq startup script, it looks like this:
1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noop state DOWN
link/l
I'll think about whether I consider this a bug or not
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
** Changed in: upstart (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
--
rc-sysinit job might start before loopback is up
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461725
You received this
Some IRC context:
I'm just trying to understand if (and if so, how) we know that the
loopback device is available once we start going through rc2.d/S* scripts.
..since that used to be the case (given that networking ran at
rcS.d/S40)
..and some server software kinda expects at least loopback t
24 matches
Mail list logo
