Re: Ordering between user@.service and systemd-logind.service

[Lennart Poettering <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On So, 30.06.24 22:48, Vladimir Kudrya (vladimir-csp@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
> I'm noticing an issue on my system (Debian sid) on shutdown. Wlroots
> compositors try to communicate release of session to logind, but logind is
> already gone, so conflicts arise due to activation attempts, journal is
> spammed with stuff like this:
>
> Jun 29 10:38:13 hostname systemd[1]: Requested transaction contradicts existing jobs: Transaction for systemd-logind.service/start is destructive (dev-disk-by\x2dpath-pci\x2d0000:02:00.0\x2dnvme\x2d1\x2dpart-by\x2dlabel-swap_1.swap has 'stop' job queued, but 'start' is included in transaction).
> Jun 29 10:38:13 hostname uwsm_sway.desktop[5886]: 00:27:37.977 [ERROR] [wlr] [libseat] [libseat/backend/logind.c:199] Could not close device: Could not activate remote peer 'org.freedesktop.login1': activation request failed: a concurrent deactivation request is already in progress
>
> Adding After=systemd-logind.service to user@.service seems to fix this issue
> with no ill effects. But two questions arise: why there is no such ordering
> by default, and is it conceptually correct?

Hmm, so we typically don't sync on systemd-logind for user
stuff/sessions if we can avoid that, since the root user is a user
that shall be allowed logging in too, and typically much earlier than
regular users, i.e long before logind is up.

That said, given that user@.service is pretty much a logind concept, I
guess we should have at least that dep in place.

Can you please file an issue (or even better a PR), that adds the dep on
logind to user@.service)? That'd be great!

Thank you,

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin