From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: Reshape stalls and fails when SELinux is enabled Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:50:29 +1100 Message-ID: <877fk8604a.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Edward Kuns , Enrico Tagliavini Cc: Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, Dec 11 2015, Edward Kuns wrote: > I ran into this as well. I unwisely worked around it by placing the > backup file on /tmp. I don't recommend that choice! I didn't see > your AVC on your EMail, but I recommend you reach out to the SELinux > folks for labeling help. I've reach out to them in the past and have > found them very helpful (as are the folks here). Getting the labeling > corrected will not only help you but everyone else in the long term. > > I agree that it would be good for mdadm to handle this kind of failure > in a more productive fashion as well. But I'm only a lurker here. I > don't have enough knowledge to suggest what would be better. One > thing that really helped me debug this was commenting out the lines > > #StandardOutput=null > #StandardError=null > > in the systemd file /lib/systemd/system/mdadm-grow-continue@.service > -- note you have to run systemctl daemon-reload after changing the > file for the change to be noticed. > > Once I did that, the system logs had much more useful information. > I'm not sure where that file is sourced, whether it's from the > linux-raid people or from the distributions or somewhere in between. > Does anyone here know if there's a reason why standard out and > standard error are sent to /dev/null for this service? That mdadm-grow-continue@.service file is part of mdadm (in the systemd directory). As for why stdout/err is set to 'null', you could try finding out who did that and ask them .... http://git.neil.brown.name/?p=mdadm.git;a=commitdiff;h=5e76dce1acd906e8fc8af04973c3a129cdc77fd6 but I'm pretty sure that he has no idea. You could try sending me a patch which changes those lines and gives some sort of explanation why it is a good change to make. There is a very good chance that I would apply that patch. Thanks, NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWd1rlAAoJEDnsnt1WYoG5NlwP/ixc0fGflPflWCrfjDjHKl86 Pqy6V6gGBi+H/9AT6wZvoeAwG1lohNAvGevPVEScYEgPQ03DcJgqGPqAuosUhVgQ NCdEjgI8J44TuOImQcOhpXXagegWmn0p3SdbNAsgjME06eOsTIp+Yz33tDLFKHUr TKp4AzbvQxgYNLaBo72OcMUpCM8yHDAThtlaGRfdYDJs4x/N0tFo6OFg8REfEueJ 1UXWbM+J+w1Wk6TsTP5X0sQOlNjXjFaEaqcCrwHhPIN8nk8FZB/Y08mP+TPLlzuL YEONBQyRKqvQADSPEhnC2WoqL7JtlimY37bVE26BH+MnwH5jEkcXOXmPwU1K/LFA yjlIvuI+V7bJ2Y77dT3y8gInSJnWDIPw+yxgXMuc87/qpMi9RkkytidfGdyW8ED9 YZNcT4W61d5OUZljr8jFDKMm79TgGDlEgOGp3h1IzA2roX0AxwAP53cmbk6kJjaQ a2OGftl3twhQJsq1dh+n2bTYckXEGmSbh30aooB5q8zO7FfLJzT31miJN4TCpNgP qSweAtOO6Ll75luPvnb/YzjiPjVto/I/MlnjYeVBk3PQ+f68Tp+7xx6YN0zf2v8n ilmSzPPAdVXmK+hVOozBNIqmtv348vDxZJRtdpPngvg5ME1QnFMO1Sh7XpEqoBQC 7JPCYyBlUh+/BMACLDLO =fqg/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--