On 30/11/17 08:40, Mark Haney wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 01:43 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Mark Haney wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Any idea what happened?
I'd say at best (and likely) a botched install, at worst something more
malicious.
>> No idea what could have happened, but if it were me, I wouldn't copy
>> anything - I'd yum reinstall instantly. You have no idea what *else* is
>> missing.
>>
>> Thinking about it... you might consider verifying the entire system.
>> Since
>> something's missing from initscripts, I'd worry a *lot*.
I'd run "rpm -Va" and examine the output. Anything it shows in the
output is something that differs from what should be installed and what
actually is. See the rpm man page for details.
Run yum reinstall for any package that appears to have issues.
> Believe me, I am. Unfortunately and unbeknownst to me, this box has
> been in production on the customer side for a couple of weeks now.
It should still be fine to run yum reinstall on a package, unless the
customer has actually done something to rely on the brokenness of the
system.
> And as far as the /etc/init.d/functions file goes, C7 doesn't place it
> there, it's in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions, so symlinking to it from
> /etc/init.d/ fixed that particular problem.
/etc/init.d is supposed to be a symbolic link to /etc/rc.d/init.d, if
they're not then you need to fix that, and before you fix that you'll
need to move any scripts you put inside it to /etc/rc.d.init.d. The
damage you're seeing here is because they have somehow become separate
directories on the server.
> But, right now, the box is stable for what it will be doing,
I would not call that stable, I can just about guarantee that it will
have problems down the road if you keep running it in this state.
Peter
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
