How to Crash Systemd in One Command

Post by foepys » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #64

djsumdog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't live in the open source world of the 1990s. People don't make this stuff in their basements. What was a community of devs that made things in their own time has turned into a huge industry supported system of semi-bullshit sharing. The OSS devs of the 90s wanted open source end products: a GIMP that could replace Photoshop. A blender that could replace 3D Studio. Today we mostly have OSS middleware. As the o…

Is Red Hat funding over 50% of Linux development? If systemd was so bad it seems like maybe our corporate overlords like IBM, Google, Intel, or Canonical could have spoken up or even banded together to compete with it, but they didn't.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

SysArchitect wrote: post #86

packetized wrote: post #44

Erm, this does not actually seem to work on Centos7, running systemd-219-19.el7_2.13. Even tried it as root inside of a sandbox - nothing.

while true; do NOTIFY_SOCKET=/run/systemd/notify systemd-notify ""; done Try this. As soon as you loop it, the bug is hit pretty quickly.

Post by Aeolos » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 8:57 PM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #71

georgyo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your reason, however for me they get outweighed by other factors. If I am a maintainer of a popular distribution, I want my distro to have the best init system, and I want that init system to have the largest user base. EL6 and its derivatives was upstart, debian and its derivatives was upstart. The vast majority of linux systems were upstart for a long period of time. Other systems did not switch to ups…

The choice that was put before the Debian TC was literally "Should we use systemd instead of sysvinit" and did not consider any of the many other init systems. In fact, a motion was put forward to the Debian TC to consider other init systems, and guess what? Pro-systemd TC members pointed to the original motion ("Should we use systemd instead of sysvinit") as the reason not to consider other init systems. That is pre…

  We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction (6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be

  D    systemd 
  U    upstart
  O    openrc
  V    sysvinit (no change)
  F    requires further discussion

  [...]

  Therefore, the resolution reads:

  We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction
  (6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux
  architectures in jessie should be systemd.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC

agwa wrote: post #87

packetized wrote: post #44

Erm, this does not actually seem to work on Centos7, running systemd-219-19.el7_2.13. Even tried it as root inside of a sandbox - nothing.

Hmmm... I've repro'd on v215, v229, and v230, although only on Debian and Ubuntu. The bug has been in systemd upstream since v209 as far as I can tell by reading the code.

Post by SysArchitect » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

nilved wrote: post #107

SysArchitect wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while true; do NOTIFY_SOCKET=/run/systemd/notify systemd-notify ""; done Try this. As soon as you loop it, the bug is hit pretty quickly.

I don't understand why that makes a difference if the bug is `assert(n > 0)`