[gentoo-user] sshd no longer starting when it should.

[gentoo-user] sshd no longer starting when it should.

[Grant Edwards]

A recent update seems to have broken sshd.  It no longer starts when
it should.  It seems to refuse to start up unless eth0 is up.  For years
I've had the following in /etc/conf.d/rc

RC_NET_STRICT_CHECKING="lo"

According to the comments that means that the "net" service is up as
long as at least one interface (including lo) is up, and sshd used to
obey that setting.  But now sshd seems to ignore that and has decided
that it knows better than I do -- it refuses to start when I tell it
to via "/etc/init.d/sshd start", and says "sshd is scheduled to start
when net.eth0 has started".  I don't plan on starting net.eth0, but I
want sshd started anyway. If I'd meant "start if you happen to feel
like it" I would have typed

/etc/init.d/sshd start-if-you-happen-to-feel-like-it

How do I get sshd to start?
 
-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Will this never-ending
                                  at               series of PLEASURABLE
                              gmail.com            EVENTS never cease?

Re: [gentoo-user] sshd no longer starting when it should.

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:18 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant Edwards 
did opine thusly:

> A recent update seems to have broken sshd.  It no longer starts when
> it should.  It seems to refuse to start up unless eth0 is up.  For years
> I've had the following in /etc/conf.d/rc
> 
> RC_NET_STRICT_CHECKING="lo"
> 
> According to the comments that means that the "net" service is up as
> long as at least one interface (including lo) is up, and sshd used to
> obey that setting.  But now sshd seems to ignore that and has decided
> that it knows better than I do -- it refuses to start when I tell it
> to via "/etc/init.d/sshd start", and says "sshd is scheduled to start
> when net.eth0 has started".  I don't plan on starting net.eth0, but I
> want sshd started anyway. If I'd meant "start if you happen to feel
> like it" I would have typed

Didn't read all the messages and files after upgrading openrc, right?

What you want is in /etc/rc.conf and it's now called rc_depend_strict

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: sshd no longer starting when it should.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:18 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant Edwards 
> did opine thusly:
>
>> A recent update seems to have broken sshd.  It no longer starts when
>> it should.  It seems to refuse to start up unless eth0 is up.  For years
>> I've had the following in /etc/conf.d/rc
>> 
>> RC_NET_STRICT_CHECKING="lo"
>> 
>> According to the comments that means that the "net" service is up as
>> long as at least one interface (including lo) is up, and sshd used to
>> obey that setting.  But now sshd seems to ignore that and has decided
>> that it knows better than I do -- it refuses to start when I tell it
>> to via "/etc/init.d/sshd start", and says "sshd is scheduled to start
>> when net.eth0 has started".  I don't plan on starting net.eth0, but I
>> want sshd started anyway. If I'd meant "start if you happen to feel
>> like it" I would have typed
>
> Didn't read all the messages and files after upgrading openrc, right?

I read them, but...

> What you want is in /etc/rc.conf and it's now called rc_depend_strict

Right:

  # Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the dependency
  # or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example, if net.eth0
  # and net.eth1 are in the default runlevel then with rc_depend_strict="NO"
  # both will be started, but services that depend on 'net' will work if either
  # one comes up. With rc_depend_strict="YES" we would require them both to
  # come up.
  #rc_depend_strict="YES"

I had assumed that since the line setting it to YES was commented out
that the default was NO, and you uncommented the line to set it to
YES.  I don't know where that belief came from, but it's wrong -- the
commented out line apparently shows the default.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Being a BALD HERO
                                  at               is almost as FESTIVE as a
                              gmail.com            TATTOOED KNOCKWURST.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sshd no longer starting when it should.

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:43 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant Edwards 
did opine thusly:

> On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 22:18 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant
> > Edwards
> > 
> > did opine thusly:
> >> A recent update seems to have broken sshd.  It no longer starts when
> >> it should.  It seems to refuse to start up unless eth0 is up.  For years
> >> I've had the following in /etc/conf.d/rc
> >> 
> >> RC_NET_STRICT_CHECKING="lo"
> >> 
> >> According to the comments that means that the "net" service is up as
> >> long as at least one interface (including lo) is up, and sshd used to
> >> obey that setting.  But now sshd seems to ignore that and has decided
> >> that it knows better than I do -- it refuses to start when I tell it
> >> to via "/etc/init.d/sshd start", and says "sshd is scheduled to start
> >> when net.eth0 has started".  I don't plan on starting net.eth0, but I
> >> want sshd started anyway. If I'd meant "start if you happen to feel
> >> like it" I would have typed
> > 
> > Didn't read all the messages and files after upgrading openrc, right?
> 
> I read them, but...
> 
> > What you want is in /etc/rc.conf and it's now called rc_depend_strict
> 
> Right:
> 
>   # Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the
> dependency # or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example,
> if net.eth0 # and net.eth1 are in the default runlevel then with
> rc_depend_strict="NO" # both will be started, but services that depend on
> 'net' will work if either # one comes up. With rc_depend_strict="YES" we
> would require them both to # come up.
>   #rc_depend_strict="YES"
> 
> I had assumed that since the line setting it to YES was commented out
> that the default was NO, and you uncommented the line to set it to
> YES.  I don't know where that belief came from, but it's wrong -- the
> commented out line apparently shows the default.

Yes, that stuff can get confusing and it's easy to get it mixed up. Te way 
it's done is the only really sane way - consider how it would play out if the 
setting was a value or a list of possibilities - you couldn't put a commented 
example in there that is the opposite of the default


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: sshd no longer starting when it should.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:43 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant Edwards 
>
>>   # Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the
>> dependency # or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example,
>> if net.eth0 # and net.eth1 are in the default runlevel then with
>> rc_depend_strict="NO" # both will be started, but services that depend on
>> 'net' will work if either # one comes up. With rc_depend_strict="YES" we
>> would require them both to # come up.
>>   #rc_depend_strict="YES"
>> 
>> I had assumed that since the line setting it to YES was commented out
>> that the default was NO, and you uncommented the line to set it to
>> YES.  I don't know where that belief came from, but it's wrong -- the
>> commented out line apparently shows the default.
>
> Yes, that stuff can get confusing and it's easy to get it mixed up.

I had that stuck pretty firmly in my head, so there must have been
something I was working with recently which did things the other way
'round where uncommenting lines caused behavior to change.

> The way it's done is the only really sane way - consider how it would
> play out if the setting was a value or a list of possibilities - you
> couldn't put a commented example in there that is the opposite of the
> default

True.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! It was a JOKE!!
                                  at               Get it??  I was receiving
                              gmail.com            messages from DAVID
                                                   LETTERMAN!!  !

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sshd no longer starting when it should.

[Tanstaafl]

On 2011-06-08 5:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Yes, that stuff can get confusing and it's easy to get it mixed up. 
> Te way it's done is the only really sane way - consider how it would
> play out if the setting was a value or a list of possibilities - you
> couldn't put a commented example in there that is the opposite of the
> default

Ummm... the sane way would simply be to say what was the default in the
comments.