** Changed in: lxc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/925513
Title:
plymouth should not run in container
To manage notifications about this
> Does it write it straight to /var/log/boot.log, or does it do it through
> syslog(2) or syslog(3)? If it writes straight to /var/log/boot.log then
> there should be no problem.
Yes, it's straight to the log file.
> /dev/console and /dev/tty{1-4} are bind-mounted pty devices, and are ok
> for i
Quoting Steve Langasek (steve.langa...@canonical.com):
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:25:36PM -, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > regarding whether disabling plymouth is the right fix: I don't know the
> > mechanisms plymouth uses.
>
> Well, I'm happy to answer questions you have on this, but I don't un
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:25:36PM -, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> regarding whether disabling plymouth is the right fix: I don't know the
> mechanisms plymouth uses.
Well, I'm happy to answer questions you have on this, but I don't understand
what issue you're trying to address by disabling plymout
Quoting Michael Adam (ob...@samba.org):
> @Serge,
>
> I might have misready your statement about network config.
> I do add nettwork config (veth0, dev=virbr0, etc) manually.
What do you mean by adding it manually? Have you added it to the
/data/lxc/ubuntu1/config? If there is no 'lxc.network.l
@Serge,
I might have misready your statement about network config.
I do add nettwork config (veth0, dev=virbr0, etc) manually.
There is no /etc/lxc/lxc.conf in my system.
The reason I used a config file snipped for lxc-create was
exactly to get this network virtualization layer into the container
@Steve,
regarding whether disabling plymouth is the right fix: I don't know the
mechanisms plymouth uses.
1. for system log entries, the right fix will be a syslog namespace,
which doesn't yet exist.
2. if it uses proc files, we may be able to use apparmor to protect from
plymouth, though that
@Serge,
thanks for your comments.
I have experimented a little more. And I found that --path is indead at
the very least misleading:
If I don't use --path, then the config (snippet) given to lxc-create by
"-f" is merged with the config that the template creates. If i do use
paht, then the -f fil
Sorry, I said netlink, but a unix socket is more likely. same root
cause
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/925513
Title:
plymouth should not run in container
To manage notifications ab
@Michael (and @Steve)
So plymouth must do stuff over netlink. Instead of using --trim, you
can simply add the lines from /etc/lxc/lxc.conf to the config file in
your custom path. By not having those lines, you are telling lxc not to
create a new network namespace. That means the container is r
Quoting Michael Adam (ob...@samba.org):
> @Serge,
>
> Could you explain why use of --path can lead to X crashing where lxc-create
> without --path is not?
After creating such a container, look at /var/lib/lxc//config
and /config.
> My motivation was: I don't want lxc-create to create the rootfs
Confirmed: running the same lxc-create command with "--trim" creates a
directly usable container.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/925513
Title:
plymouth should not run in container
To
@Serge,
Could you explain why use of --path can lead to X crashing where lxc-create
without --path is not?
My motivation was: I don't want lxc-create to create the rootfs under
/var/lib/lxc.
I need the stuff to be stored elsewhere.
I thought that the --path option in the template was made exactl
@Michael,
your problem with X crashing is actually due to your using the '--path'
option. Please don't use that. It is only meant to be specified by
lxc-create to the template. We've specifically removed --path from the
help output because it does the wrong thing when used by hand and is
danger
I understand how plymouth currently running in the container might cause
problems. My doubt is that disabling plymouth in the container is the
right fix.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/
Hi,
plymouth running in the container prevents me from using
the container at all, it kills my X instead:
I created a 11.10 container with the following lxc-create command on
freshly installed 11.10:
sudo lxc-create -n ubuntu1 -f ./ubuntu1-template.conf -t ubuntu --
--release=oneiric --path=/dat
I'm having trouble sussing out the underlying principle here that
warrants special-casing plymouth in a container. Plymouth is the
standard boot-time I/O multiplexer; any upstart jobs that need to
interact with the user at boot time should be using plymouth. Now for
the most part, this currently
17 matches
Mail list logo
