[Lxc-users] Ubuntu 12.04: initscripts.postinst

[Papp Tamas]

On 06/15/2012 04:49 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgraber at ubuntu.com):
>> On 06/15/2012 09:10 AM, Papp Tamas wrote:
>>> hi All,
>>>
>>> I upgraded initscripts package:
>>>
>>> # apt-get install initscripts
>>> Reading package lists... Done
>>> Building dependency tree... Done
>>> Recommended packages:
>>>     psmisc
>>> The following packages will be upgraded:
>>>     initscripts
>>> 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 46 not upgraded.
>>> Need to get 27.8 kB of archives.
>>> After this operation, 1024 B of additional disk space will be used.
>>> Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main initscripts amd64
>>> 2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu11 [27.8 kB]
>>> Fetched 27.8 kB in 0s (1166 kB/s)
>>> (Reading database ... 11725 files and directories currently installed.)
>>> Preparing to replace initscripts 2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu10 (using
>>> .../initscripts_2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu11_amd64.deb) ...
>>> Unpacking replacement initscripts ...
>>> Processing triggers for ureadahead ...
>>> Setting up initscripts (2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu11) ...
>>> mount: block device /dev/shm is write-protected, mounting read-only
>>> mount: cannot mount block device /dev/shm read-only
>>> dpkg: error processing initscripts (--configure):
>>>    subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
>>> Errors were encountered while processing:
>>>    initscripts
>>> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I change line #48:
>>>
>>>                   if mount -t $FSTYPE "$SRC" "$DEST" $OPTS ; then
>>> to
>>>
>>>                   if ! mount -t $FSTYPE "$SRC" "$DEST" $OPTS ; then
>>>
>>> It's OK. But it's of course is not usable solution.
>>> What would be it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> tamas
>> Hi,
>>
>> The logic in initscripts postinst is indeed a bit broken, Serge has been
>> looking at fixing it, not sure how far he got.
> That's actually a bit different.  See http://pad.lv/974584 .  I'm looking
> at the case of being in a chroot (for debootstrap).  Papp is running it
> in a container, so the !chroot case.
>
> This may just be an apparmor denial?

I've just tried it with and uptodate host system and the same happened.

And I guess you're right:

[80260.508699] type=1400 audit(1340124706.145:125): apparmor="DENIED" 
operation="mount" info="failed type match" error=-13 parent=1175 
profile="lxc-container-default" name="/run/shm/" pid=1221 comm="mount" 
srcname="/dev/shm/" flags="rw, bind"


tamas