From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D2B57200C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:34:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 430348B3E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:33:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A893C8B2C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8651F45791; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <c43f435a-fb1f-304e-1c69-3edf71d2e705@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:32:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/93.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Victor Hooi <victorhooi@yahoo.com> Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <CAMnnoUKQCHYBCz6_chonTW9Az73N1kgTBGs6Bsw2K=CqdGK17g.ref@mail.gmail.com> <CAMnnoUKQCHYBCz6_chonTW9Az73N1kgTBGs6Bsw2K=CqdGK17g@mail.gmail.com> <8cd3661e-8f46-0bcd-8f94-cab86e45caf4@proxmox.com> <CAMnnoU+hH7W=mgfejkMuZa_bK+G3Bwn9GGnYpQL+77wUKwq2hA@mail.gmail.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMnnoU+hH7W=mgfejkMuZa_bK+G3Bwn9GGnYpQL+77wUKwq2hA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.204 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.964 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] trousers error in latest test repo? X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 08:34:27 -0000 Hi Victor, On 06.10.21 10:15, Victor Hooi wrote: > Ah - interesting - as a data-point, this was a new install of Proxmox 7= =2E0-2 > (from the ISO image), and then I ran an apt update, apt dist-upgrade > directly after first boot. very interesting indeed, I mainly tested on a cluster that was installed = with PVE 6.2 and a development VM that was originally a Bullseye pre-release ISO, = it worked out OK on both. >=20 > I just did an apt update, apt dist-upgrade again - and there was one > package to update (trousers). >=20 > I am still getting an error with this version: Hmm first I thought that could be the "stop-before-upgrade" of the old, b= roken version, but that makes not much sense as your error is on a "start". Did you edit `/etc/init.d/trousers` before the upgrade? And could you please still try `apt install --reinstall trousers` to veri= fy if it was that. >=20 > Unpacking trousers (0.3.14+fixed1-1.2+pve1) over (0.3.14+fixed1-1.2) ..= =2E >> Setting up trousers (0.3.14+fixed1-1.2+pve1) ... >> Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/trousers ... >> Job for trousers.service failed because the control process exited wit= h >> error code. >> See "systemctl status trousers.service" and "journalctl -xe" for detai= ls. >> invoke-rc.d: initscript trousers, action "start" failed. >> =E2=97=8F trousers.service - LSB: starts tcsd >> Loaded: loaded (/etc/init.d/trousers; generated) >> Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2021-10-06 01:13:08 = PDT; >> 4ms ago >> Docs: man:systemd-sysv-generator(8) >> Process: 192905 ExecStart=3D/etc/init.d/trousers start (code=3Dexi= ted, >> status=3D30) >> CPU: 9ms >=20 > Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 systemd[1]: Starting LSB: starts tcsd... >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 tcsd[192910]: TCSD TDDL[192910]: TrouSerS ioctl:= >> (25) Inappropriate ioctl for device >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 tcsd[192910]: TCSD TDDL[192910]: TrouSerS Fallin= g >> back to Read/Write device support. >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 tcsd[192910]: TCSD TCS[192910]: TrouSerS ERROR: = TCS >> GetCapability failed with result =3D 0x1e >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 trousers[192905]: Starting Trusted Computing dae= mon: >> tcsd >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 trousers[192911]: failed! >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 systemd[1]: trousers.service: Control process >> exited, code=3Dexited, status=3D30/n/a >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 systemd[1]: trousers.service: Failed with result= >> 'exit-code'. >> Oct 06 01:13:08 mgmt1 systemd[1]: Failed to start LSB: starts tcsd. >=20 > I should note that the spec sheet for the NUC7i5BNK says it does not ha= ve a > TPM - would that be related at all to these errors? Well yes, that was an issue with the old version, it checked that in a wr= ong way. But the newer, just uploaded package adapted that part, which was also te= sted by creating and dropping a fake /deb/tmp1 node, so it should work out. Or do you have a node? ls -l /dev/tmp*=20 cheers, Thomas