Bug 1043191

Summary: xl2tpd.service: ExecStartPre=/sbin/modprobe -q l2tp_ppp fails
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson>
Component: kernelAssignee: Kernel Maintainer List <kernel-maint>
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 20CC: gansalmon, iamdexpl, itamar, jonathan, kernel-maint, madhu.chinakonda, mchehab, pwouters
Target Milestone: ---Flags: jforbes: needinfo?
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-12-10 14:56:51 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Alex Williamson 2013-12-14 19:57:01 UTC
Description of problem:

The module specified for ExecStartPre in xl2tpd.service no longer exists resulting in the service failing to start.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xl2tpd-1.3.1-14.fc20.x86_64
kernel-3.11.10-301.fc20.x86_64

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Paul Wouters 2014-05-13 01:46:35 UTC
the l2tp_ppp module comes in via kernel-modules-extra, which is a dependency.

I checked this in rawhide and f20, and it is still there for me?

Do you still experience this problem?

Comment 2 Vadim Raskhozhev 2014-09-10 14:29:30 UTC
Not sure about Alex, but I stuck into this problem after updating kernel from 3.15.10-201 to 3.16.2-200. Surprisingly, such an update did not bring the new version of kernel-modules-extra. Moreover, xl2tpd managed to start after copying /usr/lib/systemd/system/xl2tpd.service into /etc/systemd/system/, commenting out "ExecStartPre=/sbin/modprobe -q l2tp_ppp" in that and running `systemctl daemon-reexec`, and has been working since.

So now I have

kernel-3.15.10-201.fc20.x86_64
kernel-3.16.2-200.fc20.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-3.15.10-201.fc20.x86_64
xl2tpd-1.3.6-1.fc20.x86_64

and xl2tpd connects me to the Internet with no l2tp_ppp, believe it or not.

Comment 3 Paul Wouters 2014-09-11 14:01:33 UTC
the l2tp_ppp kernel module greatly enhanced the speed by not requiring every single packet to go to userland for decapsulation, only to be sent back to the kernel again. So not using this kernel module can significantly load your cpu.

Comment 4 Vadim Raskhozhev 2014-09-12 15:15:37 UTC
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #3)
> the l2tp_ppp kernel module greatly enhanced the speed by not requiring every
> single packet to go to userland for decapsulation, only to be sent back to
> the kernel again. So not using this kernel module can significantly load
> your cpu.

Thanks for clarifying the role of l2tp_ppp. xl2tpd starts and works fine with unmodified xl2tpd.service file after manual installing of kernel-modules-extra-3.16.2-200.fc20.x86_64. The only question remains unclear to me: why kernel-modules-extra did not update in tact with kernel as a result of `yum update kernel`?

Comment 5 Paul Wouters 2014-09-15 18:46:19 UTC
re-assigning this to the kernel component as this is not an xl2tpd problem.

Comment 6 Josh Boyer 2014-09-15 18:51:12 UTC
(In reply to Vadim Raskhozhev from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #3)
> > the l2tp_ppp kernel module greatly enhanced the speed by not requiring every
> > single packet to go to userland for decapsulation, only to be sent back to
> > the kernel again. So not using this kernel module can significantly load
> > your cpu.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the role of l2tp_ppp. xl2tpd starts and works fine
> with unmodified xl2tpd.service file after manual installing of
> kernel-modules-extra-3.16.2-200.fc20.x86_64. The only question remains
> unclear to me: why kernel-modules-extra did not update in tact with kernel
> as a result of `yum update kernel`?

We didn't change anything in terms of packging.  Do you have the yum.log that shows this?

Comment 7 Vadim Raskhozhev 2014-09-23 22:46:53 UTC
(In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #6)
> 
> We didn't change anything in terms of packging.  Do you have the yum.log
> that shows this?

Just tried to `yum update kernel` and got 

===============================================================================================================================================================
 Package                                    Arch                         Version                                   Repository                             Size
===============================================================================================================================================================
Installing:
 kernel                                     x86_64                       3.16.3-200.fc20                           updates-testing                        32 M
Removing:
 kernel                                     x86_64                       3.15.10-201.fc20                          @updates                              137 M
Removing for dependencies:
 kernel-modules-extra                       x86_64                       3.15.10-201.fc20                          @updates                              8.2 M

Transaction Summary
===============================================================================================================================================================
Install  1 Package
Remove   1 Package (+1 Dependent package)

Is this ok [y/d/N]: 

and corresponding entries into yum.log:
Sep 24 02:40:14 Installed: kernel-3.16.3-200.fc20.x86_64
Sep 24 02:40:15 Erased: kernel-modules-extra-3.15.10-201.fc20.x86_64


If I was running `yum update` I'd have got both new kernel and kernel-modules-extra installed — `yum check-update` shown those new packages.

BTW, sorry for non-replying for a while.

Comment 8 Justin M. Forbes 2014-11-13 15:55:08 UTC
*********** MASS BUG UPDATE **************

We apologize for the inconvenience.  There is a large number of bugs to go through and several of them have gone stale.  Due to this, we are doing a mass bug update across all of the Fedora 20 kernel bugs.

Fedora 20 has now been rebased to 3.17.2-200.fc20.  Please test this kernel update (or newer) and let us know if you issue has been resolved or if it is still present with the newer kernel.

If you have moved on to Fedora 21, and are still experiencing this issue, please change the version to Fedora 21.

If you experience different issues, please open a new bug report for those.

Comment 9 Justin M. Forbes 2014-12-10 14:56:51 UTC
This bug is being closed with INSUFFICIENT_DATA as there has not been a response in over 3 weeks. If you are still experiencing this issue, please reopen and attach the relevant data from the latest kernel you are running and any data that might have been requested previously.