Bug 2029179
Summary: | fwupd daemon fails to start | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Reporter: | Vladimir Rusinov <vladimir.rusinov> |
Component: | fwupd | Assignee: | Richard Hughes <rhughes> |
Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | Eirik Fuller <efuller> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | CentOS Stream | CC: | bstinson, jwboyer, rvr |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-12-09 14:37:12 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: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Vladimir Rusinov
2021-12-05 15:33:17 UTC
This sounds similar to an upstream report that we never tracked down: https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/issues/3790 Are you missing any packages compared to a system that was installed with RHEL 9 rather than upgraded from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9? i.e. is the fwupd package missing a `Requires` we normally get for "free" with another normally-installed package? Thanks. I did a fresh install of CentOS 9 Stream (latest dvd from the centos.org in libvirt VM), and fwupd service works fine in new install. so that's good news, and package is sound for most users. I will now try to see what's the difference between the systems. I saw that issue too, so I guess I'll especially focus on things like inotify / file limits / etc. I understand in-place upgrade is not something you'd want to support but as you said this may still be a hint of a bug. It wasn't fwupd's fault after all. A "Too many open files" error randomly popped up, which made me look into sysctl inotify limits. fwupd service was able to start and after doing `sudo sysctl fs.inotify.max_user_instances=512`. The failure of fwupd after 8->9 upgrade is most likely a coincidence. The affected system is running a bunch of containerd containers as part of a small kubernetes cluster, so its workload must have changed after upgrade. I think the only thing fwupd could have done better is a better error message ("Too many open files") - I will suggest it on the linked issue. We added this upstream; would you be okay if I closed this with NEXT_RELEASE or UPSTREAM? Sure, I would have done it myself if I had permission to do so. Thanks for your attention! |