Does antiX21 runit need user “_runit-log” to own logfiles?

[Member entropyagent]

Hi antiXers

Last year while fumbling though an install of antiX21 64bit runit edition, I encountered this status messages in the output of ps command:

$ ps -feww| grep -i log
root 1505 1 0 21:29 ? 00:00:02 runsvdir -P /etc/service log: log/./run: file does not exist chown: invalid user: ‘_runit-log:adm’ chpst: fatal: unknown user/group: _runit-log 

I still have this error in the antiX21 install from that time:

$ ps -feww|grep -i log
root      1515     1  0 21:07 ?        00:00:01 runsvdir -P /etc/service log: '_runit-log:adm' chpst: fatal: unknown user/group: _runit-log runsv ssh: fatal: unable to start log/./run: file does not exist runsv acpi-support: fatal: unable to start ./run: file does not exist runsv sudo: fatal: unable to start ./run: file does not exist *** debug [daemon/old_main.c(156)]: selected 0 times chown: invalid user: '_runit-log:adm' chpst: fatal: unknown user/group: _runit-log 

I see this seems to have been mentioned during testing of one of the alphas?:
Reply To: antiX-bullseye-a2-runit_x64-full.iso available

I am busy tidying up an install of antiX21 386 runit on a Thinkpad a22m with Pentium 3, and it seems to have the same output in the ps – I am too lazy to try and copy it over, but it also complains about the unknown user/group in the chpst command.

I am wondering if this could be because runit is expecting to be able to change a process owner to id “_runit-log” ?

This id seems to be mentioned in this debian bug report: dh-runit: Change in runit loguser need transition code
Sample text “Runit recently changed the loguser from runit-log to _runit-log”

Could this be a concern?

• This topic was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by entropyagent.
• This topic was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by entropyagent.

[Member entropyagent]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Trying antiX21 runit 32bit on another pentium 3 – I compared it to a devuan4 runit 64bit machine.
There do not seem to be ssh logs on the antiX21 machine, but there are on the devuan4 machine
Could this be a sign that the _runit-log id is needed for ssh to create logfiles?

on devuan4runit 64-bit machine:

--:/etc/sv/ssh/log$ grep -i runit-log /etc/passwd 
runit-log:x:999:999:Created by dh-sysuser for runit:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin
_runit-log:x:998:998:Created by dh-sysuser for runit:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log$

--:/etc/sv/ssh/log$ cat /etc/sv/ssh/log/run; 
#!/bin/sh
chown _runit-log:adm '/var/log/runit/ssh'
chmod 750 '/var/log/runit/ssh'
exec chpst -u _runit-log svlogd -tt '/var/log/runit/ssh'
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log$ ls -ld /var/log/runit/ssh
drwxr-x--- 2 _runit-log adm 4096 Jun 11 19:20 /var/log/runit/ssh   <---logfolder owned by _runit-log:adm
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log$  sudo ls -lrt /var/log/runit/ssh/ | tail -4
-rw-r--r-- 1 _runit-log _runit-log   363 Jun  3 08:05 @400000006299a691227c50d4.u     <---logfiles owned by _runit-log:_runit-log
-rw-r--r-- 1 _runit-log _runit-log  4051 Jun  5 17:09 @40000000629ce3982e74632c.u
-rw-r--r-- 1 _runit-log _runit-log  5895 Jun 11 09:57 @4000000062a4cee6247fae6c.u
-rw-r--r-- 1 _runit-log _runit-log  2207 Jun 14 09:48 current
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log$ 

on antix21runit machine

--:/etc/sv/ssh/log
$ grep -i runit-log /etc/passwd   <---- No sign of runit-log in passwd
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log

--:/etc/sv/ssh/log
$ cat /etc/sv/ssh/log/run
#!/bin/sh
chown _runit-log:adm '/var/log/runit/ssh'
chmod 750 '/var/log/runit/ssh'
exec chpst -u _runit-log svlogd -tt '/var/log/runit/ssh'
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log
$ ls -ld /var/log/runit/ssh
drwxr-x--- 2 root root 4096 Nov 10  2021 /var/log/runit/ssh     <---logfolder owned by root:root
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log
$ sudo ls -lrt /var/log/runit/ssh/ | tail -4                    
total 0                                                         <---no sign of logfiles
--:/etc/sv/ssh/log
$ 

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

There is the CAPACITY to add several different logs for various processes, tasks, and activities.
I’m not certain precisely which ones we have activated, but there are things documented.

While I don’t know offhand what we have currently available, I do vaguely recall that we’ve had discussions about this that took place during antiX 21 development (and possibly afterward as well). Try searching around and ask again if you can’t find anything. Meanwhile, others may have immediate recollection (or search wizardry) and can answer you faster than me.

--
Brian Masinick

[Member entropyagent]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Thanks for the response and feedback. I hope you can understand how terms like :

runsv sudo: fatal: unable to start ./run: file does not exist

chown: invalid user: '_runit-log:adm'

chpst: fatal: unknown user/group:

*** debug [daemon/old_main.c(156)]

in the process snapshot could cause concern to arise in the faint hearts of the faint-hearted.

Is logging/not logging toggled by the creation/non-creation of the id that runit tries to hand the logs over to? That does seem a bit brutal. I have the idea that some SysV processes are not started at certain runlevels if their startup scripts are not executable. And runit uses the presence or absence of files (e.g. run, down, finish) to influence what it does. But do these control methods leave behind, what look like error messages with the word ‘fatal’ in them ?

Could I ask you or those others for some pointers to where this antiX21 runit documentation may be found? I note there seems to be quite a bit of documentation for antix19, which has been around for a while, but the antiX-21 announcement seemed to imply that the 21 runit implementation was not the same as that of 19:

Note 2: runit editions now set up in a similar way to Void/Artix.
Users should be prepared to familiarize themselves with how runit services work.

Perhaps this is telling us to consult Void/Artix? Basically, if there is full, comprehensive documentation on the antiX21’s specific implementation of runit, could someone please point me to it? (I know this is a tall order for projects in the volunteer/FLOSS space, but it’s worth asking before looking elsewhere, and trying to sift through elsewhere’s docs to distinguish between bits that apply and bits that don’t apply. And if someone has completed this monumental work, I’m sure they would like the chance to show it off)
If not, would Void, or Artix, be the place to start looking?

I’ve just realised there is another possibility….is there not-full, not-complete documentation?

I ask because I have a limited amount of brainpower, and it is easily baffled by trying to distinguish between the bits that apply and the bits that don’t apply.
And even if there were a “Book Of The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth”, I might not have what it takes to understand it.

Yes, this is part of my punishment for choosing runit over SysV. But the cool kids are using it…

I notice this entry (June 2021) for 19.4: https://www.antixforum.com/antix-19-4-runit-bug-and-fix/
Would it also be necessary to apply this manual fix when using the 21 install media?

[Author]

Posts