On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:48:45PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 27.11.2014 um 16:41 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> > Am 27.11.2014 um 15:59 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> >> I would have expected, that the socket does *not* exist before systemd
> >> is re-execd, but apparently I had a file there:
> >>
> >> srw-rw-rw- 1 root root 0 Oct 10 10:41 /run/systemd/notify
> >>
> >> and no process listening on it.
> >> (don't worry about the date, it was run in a VM with a busted clock).
> >>
> >> *Some* process is triggering the creation of the notification socket and
> >> it also seems to have the wrong permissions (should be srwxrwxrwx).
> >
> > It's actually a bit simpler: v44 *did* already use /run/systemd/notify
> > (with permissions srw-rw-rw-), then it was changed to use an abstract
> > namespace and it was changed back and forth a couple of times.
> > Maybe a simple chmod will do when upgrading from v44. Will test.
>
> Sjoerd, you mentioned in your bug report, that you upgraded from v208->v215
>
> v208 uses an abstract socket though, so I'm not sure if it's actually
> the same issue.
> Did you maybe first upgrade from v44 to v208 and then did the
> dist-upgrade to v215?
No pretty sure it was from v208 directly. I was just re-reading the code of
upstream system again it it looks like upstream now removes the old socket file
right before calling bind:
f0e62e89970b8c38eb07a9beebd277ce13a5fcc2
We probably should backport that one, which should solve both issues.
--
Fill what's empty, empty what's full, scratch where it itches.
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
