On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 07:26 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:19:50AM +0100, hw wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 08:41 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:17:05PM +0100, hw wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 08:03 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:43:23PM +0100, hw wrote: > > > > > > There's only a bunch of links in that directory, apparently all > > > > > > pointing to files that don't exist. Don't you have that? > > > > > > > > > > unicorn:~$ ls -l /run/user/1000/systemd/units > > > > > total 0 > > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 greg greg 32 Jan 4 10:33 > > > > > invocation:at-spi-dbus-bus.service -> bfec6466520a4586b8c9205c235ccc92 > > > > You can access it just fine. You just don't *understand* it. (Neither > > > do I.) > > > > If I could access it, I could display the file. If there is no file, > > then these directory entries shouldn't exist. > > I don't know how to make it any clearer. THE SYMBOLIC LINK TARGET IS > THE CONTENT. They are storing this "Invocation ID" inside the symbolic > link itself. > > This is what they chose to do. I don't know WHY. But you can clearly > see what they're doing.
I can only see links to files that don't exist. > > > I did a bit of Google searching, and I think this is something called > > > an "InvocationID". > > > > > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 greg greg 32 Jan 4 10:33 > > > > > invocation:at-spi-dbus-bus.service -> bfec6466520a4586b8c9205c235ccc92 > > > > > > unicorn:~$ systemctl --user show -p InvocationID at-spi-dbus-bus.service > > > InvocationID=bfec6466520a4586b8c9205c235ccc92 > > > > That is not useful: > > > > > > systemctl --user show -p InvocationID at-spi-dbus-bus.service > > InvocationID=4bd113a0ec4c4f1eab6c51da8a43c1af > > Invalid unit name "InvocationID=4bd113a0ec4c4f1eab6c51da8a43c1af" escaped > > as "InvocationID\x3d4bd113a0ec4c4f1eab6c51da8a43c1af" (maybe you should use > > systemd-escape?). > > InvocationID=b6e84c2dd18b4d9f84436580113abaca > > > > InvocationID= > > What were you trying to do? You took my command and mangled it. You > appended the *output* of my command as an *argument* to your command, > substituting my 128-bit InvocationID with one of your own. Why? I copied your command and replaced the UUID with one that shows up in /run/user/1000/systemd/units/ as a link target since it seems unlikely that the same UUIDs you have are being used here.. At least that was my intention. Maybe your command was supposed to be 'systemctl --user show -p InvocationID at-spi-dbus-bus.service'? That shows only InvocationID=b6e84c2dd18b4d9f84436580113abaca which doesn't tell me anything. > > Neither the user, nor root gets anything from this. What is it > > supposed to show? > > You got the InvocationID of the at-spi-dbus-bus.service unit. You > also got an error message because of the mangled argument you passed, > and an extra blank InvocationID= line as output from that same mangled > argument, because it wasn't a running unit's name. > > When I ran *my* command, I was simply demonstrating that the "systemctl" > command, when asked for the InvocationID of a unit, gives the same > 128-bit number that you can see with ls -l. > > That's all. Nothing more complicated than that. How would that be useful? > THE 128-BIT HEX NUMBER IS THE CONTENT. IT IS THE DATA. IT IS WHAT YOU > SEEM TO BE LOOKING FOR. THAT'S ALL THERE IS. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL > PAYLOAD TO BE FOUND. > > THE SYMBOLIC LINKS ARE *SUPPOSED* TO BE DANGLING. THEY ARE NOT MEANT > TO BE catTED. If that is so, what is the purpose of useless directory entries? > > > Maybe it's just a fancy PID? I dunno, it's all very shrouded in mystery. > > > > See, you're starting to understand how this is alarming :) > > If you want to know what the InvocationID IS USED FOR, ask on the > systemd mailing lists, because clearly we don't know. That may be a good idea. > If you want to know WHY they chose to store the InvocationID inside > the target of a symbolic link, instead of as regular file content, > ask on the systemd mailing lists, because clearly we don't know. > > If you want to know why things that you've never seen before are > alarming to you, ask your therapist, because... well, you get the picture, > I hope. > Unknown things never seen before are always alarming. There may not be any therapist able to help you if they aren't alarming to you.
