Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Gentoo without udev? - OpenRC / netifrc problem
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Networking & Security
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vyedmic
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:52 pm    Post subject: Gentoo without udev? - OpenRC / netifrc problem Reply with quote

Hello,

Please excuse my n00biness.

Here's my problem:

I rent a Xen based VPS with SolusVM Gentoo image. I was not successful in upgrading the kernel and since the hosting provider is obviously not swamped by requests for Gentoo (I discovered that their Gentoo image was corrupted originally...) I don't feel the urge to try and bother them with helping me to create another image. The problem is the supplied kernel doesn't do devtmpfs. Therefore I am stuck on the supplied udev (which is 171-9).

The issue is that I can't update OpenRC, since the network scripts have been moved into netifrc, and that requires newer udev.

Is it possible to run a Gentoo server without udev? Will the /dev get populated by kernel? Should there be a support for systems with older versions of udev in OpenRC? Shall I just be done with it and never update @world?

Thanks for reading and any feedback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John R. Graham
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10156
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why can't you update openrc?

- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vyedmic
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because I lost my network scripts when I tried. They are now part of netifrc and that needs udev higher than 171-9.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6228
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vyedmic wrote:
Because I lost my network scripts when I tried. They are now part of netifrc and that needs udev higher than 171-9.

vyedmic ... actually thats not the case at all, I don't have udev installed but have netifrc. You will need some package providing virtual/dev-manager, but there is no explict requirement for udev.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vyedmic
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks khay. I'll do more research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6228
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vyedmic wrote:
Thanks khay. I'll do more research.

vyedmic ... you're welcome, but I'm undeserving as there may actually be a dependency for > 171-9 if udev is installed (as it is, obviously), probably as openrc wants to pull in an update to udev-init-scripts.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you use eudev instead?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vyedmic
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I'm not mistaken, eudev needs devtmpfs too.

After researching static-dev a little bit and looking at the /dev on this host I gave up and hardmasked >udev-171-r9, eudev, systemd, >openrc-0.11.8 and kmod. Let's see how long I will be able to keep on updating. Thanks a lot for suggestions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vyedmic,

You can have a static /dev on a server, then throw away udev.
However, I don't think you can do the switch without booting some rescue environment.

Its devtmpfs in the kernel that populates /dev. udev only manages /dev permissions and ods and ends.

You might have a static /dev under your udev /dev. Gentoo used to provide that.
However it will not contain /dev/sd* entries, so you cannot just use it.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bstaletic
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
However it will not contain /dev/sd* entries, so you cannot just use it.


Can a user just symlink block devices under static dev to /dev/sd*?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bstaletic,

No, you need to make /dev special entries in /dev with mknod.
Until the entries exist, there is nothing to symlink to.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bstaletic
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That part is obvious. When you finish creating devices using mknod could you make appropriate symlinks to be able to use /dev/sd*?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bstaletic,

I do not understand why you would want symlinks. I have a static /dev. A piece of it looks like
Code:
 $ ls -l /dev/sd*
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8,   0 May 12  2013 /dev/sda
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8,   1 May 12  2013 /dev/sda1
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8,   2 May 12  2013 /dev/sda2
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8,   4 May 12  2013 /dev/sda4
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8,   5 May 12  2013 /dev/sda5
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 8,   6 May 12  2013 /dev/sda6

The dates are when I ran mknod to make those nodes.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bstaletic
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
However it will not contain /dev/sd* entries, so you cannot just use it.


I have missunderstood this as you can not have /dev/sd* with static dev only. First thing I have thought of are symlinks to solve this. I now understand there's no need for this kind of symlinks symlinks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bstaletic,

The problem is that the default static /dev provided by gentoo is out of date by many years.
Its no use as is with current hardware. It can be fixed ... I've done it.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UberLord
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 6737
Location: Blighty

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
bstaletic,

The problem is that the default static /dev provided by gentoo is out of date by many years.
Its no use as is with current hardware. It can be fixed ... I've done it.


Sure it can, but why should the users have to do this?
I for one, would kill for a static /dev like my NetBSD boxes.
Somehow it manages plug n play USB sticks without udev, but that's another story ;)
_________________
Use dhcpcd for all your automated network configuration needs
Use dhcpcd-ui (GTK+/Qt) as your System Tray Network tool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5589

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On my server, I use devtmpfs. On its own! Everything works fine, I don't get magic disk ID symlinks but I don't need them anyway.

I had to lie to portage to achieve that (USE=mdev, followed by not using mdev); apparently it doesn't trust the kernel to identify its own devices accurately...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6228
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
On my server, I use devtmpfs. On its own! Everything works fine, I don't get magic disk ID symlinks but I don't need them anyway.

Ant P. ... I wasn't aware that that was an option, so good to know.

Ant P. wrote:
I had to lie to portage to achieve that (USE=mdev, followed by not using mdev); apparently it doesn't trust the kernel to identify its own devices accurately...

That's cheating ;)

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UberLord,

I started playing with a static /dev when the udev source tree got merged inte systemd. At that time, it appeared that udev didn't have long to live as a usable seperate entitiy.
I have a strong preference for a systemd free system (this in the wrong thread to go into details) and I was curious to see how much of Linux still worked without a device manager of any sort. A trip dowm memory lane, if you like.

The problem with updating the static-dev ebuild is always what do you include. sd* is easy.
What about /dev/md*?
With or without partitions?
dm* ?
Then there is the virtio nodes ... where do you stop?

Users wanting a more complex setup need to make their own nodes and symlinks, sd* is an easy practice case.

@Ant P.
devtmpfs alone works but the permissions on the /dev nodes are left as created by the kernel, since you don't have a device manager to fix them.
You might want to look into that.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3688
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
@Ant P.
devtmpfs alone works but the permissions on the /dev nodes are left as created by the kernel, since you don't have a device manager to fix them.
You might want to look into that.


Sounds like all that's needed is for some process to periodically update the permissions
and then one has most of what udev is supposed to do without all the politics that are associated with it.

Thanks for the info, Ant and Neddy
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau & radeon, oss4
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
4.14.62 kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 7.3.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose,

Like /sbin/hotplug :)
I've not exhumed that yet.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5589

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
@Ant P.
devtmpfs alone works but the permissions on the /dev nodes are left as created by the kernel, since you don't have a device manager to fix them.
You might want to look into that.

You're right - almost everything in there is mode 600 root:root, except for a few things like [u]random and zero/null/full. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone with a monitor as the same goes for the DRI nodes. Nothing on that machine needs hardware (except eth0 and a serial console) though, so "the defaults" are good enough for me.

I haven't noticed any breakage specific to that setup, so far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eflothmeier
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Posts: 58
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

See:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-985832-start-0.html

A quote from one of the posts:

"This is part of the process to isolate netifrc completely to net-misc/netifrc
and to it's own repository, out from openrc, out from udev-init-scripts"


In my case I have a block as a result of a portage tree update:
,
,
,
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/openrc-0.13.9 [0.12.4]
[blocks B ] <sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27 ("<sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27" is blocking sys-apps/openrc-0.13.9)
,
,

The solution was to modify package.mask:
.
.
>sys-apps/openrc-0.12.4
.
.
Now
sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27
and
sys-apps/openrc-0.13.9)

have disappeared for the slate of merges
Am I "sweeping dirt under the carpet"?
Will this come back to haunt me later?

Erich
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42563
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eflothmeier,

Yes. You are sweeping dirt under the carpet.

Quote:
The solution was to modify package.mask:
>sys-apps/openrc-0.12.4
says, I have put a blindfold on and don't want to see newer packages of openrc.

Here
Code:
 [ebuild U ] sys-apps/openrc-0.13.9 [0.12.4]
[blocks B ] <sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27 ("<sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27" is blocking sys-apps/openrc-0.13.9)
the hint to the fix is in the block message.
Specifically <sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27 so you need to update to at least sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-27 to avoid the block.

Code:
emerge -1 sys-fs/udev-init-scripts
should do that after you remove the package mask entry.

Homework: Why the -1?
What does it do and why do you need it?
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eflothmeier
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Posts: 58
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bet you're tired of telling people about
emerge -1. I searched the wiki and, so far,
haven't found any documentation on this
technique. The section of the Gentoo
handbook "when portage is complaining"
doesn't say anyting directly about it either.

Moreover, if one were to wholesale do
installs with emerge -1, that would be
damaging too.

Anyway, thanks for the tip

Erich
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Networking & Security All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum