Hi! * Salvatore Bonaccorso [Fri Nov 25, 2022 at 05:21:41PM +0100]: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Michael Prokop wrote: > > * Salvatore Bonaccorso [Fri Nov 25, 2022 at 02:07:25PM +0100]: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/systemd/60-nfs.rules > > > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > > > +# Ensure all NFS systctl settings get applied when modules load > > > + > > > +# sunrpc module supports "sunrpc.*" sysctls > > > +ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="module", KERNEL=="sunrpc", \ > > > + RUN+="/sbin/sysctl -q --pattern ^sunrpc --system" > > [...] > > > > Thanks for taking care of this problem, Salvatore! > > Thanks to you for prodding about it, hope to bring the issue bit > forward with the series proposal. ACK, thanks, I highly appreciate your efforts! > > AFAICT even latest busybox's sysctl does not support the `--pattern` > > option yet: > > > > | sysctl: unrecognized option '--pattern' > > | BusyBox v1.35.0 (Debian 1:1.35.0-4) multi-call binary. > > | [....] > > > > So any initramfs that uses busybox and its sysctl (like in Debian) > > and trying to apply above udev rules might fail? > > But would this actually be a problem for us here? There is no hook > script which would copy the 60-nfs.rules (not relevant in initrd) to > the initrd. The rule only would apply on module load outside the > initrd. Indeed, I also think that as long as this udev rule doesn't end up in the initrd there shouldn't be any problem with it. > There is only a subset of rules which would be copied into initrd, > like the ones in hook/udev. But 60-nfs.rules would be specific to > nfs-utils, which does not provide a initramfs-tools hook to include > the rules into initrd. Good point, thanks for checking and clarifying. > Now the question you raise, is, do they need to be handled actually > already as well in initrd? You are correct, when handled through the > previous mechanism with modrobe.d configuration, 50-nfs.conf was added > to initramfs: > > usr/lib/modprobe.d/50-nfs.conf > > (and causing the issues seen). > > Please correct me if I missed something from the picture. No, I think you're right and AFAICS we shouldn't see the issues we originally noticed any longer. Thanks! :) regards -mika-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
