On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 04:20:25PM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Friday in 2025, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>I've bisected it to 28d4703a1f12711ab180e72db08a83bae59941df which is
>what I thought was the patch that changed the behaviour.
>
What is that commit?
Well, that's because you did not check my local branch with the e-mail
patches applied, have you! Of course that's a huckup on my part, but
that's the one which tries keeping the connection to the dbus-daemon for
running machines. Sorry.
Both my libvirt checkouts give me:
fatal: bad object 28d4703a1f12711ab180e72db08a83bae59941df
And even the web gives me a 404:
https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/commit/28d4703a1f12711ab180e72db08a8...
Jano
>I also noticed that we do not clean up the dbus-daemon config file when
>starting the domain fails.
>
>The diff in the configs is only the path.
>
>If I copy the config, run the dbus-daemon manually, change the socket
>path to /tmp/dbus-test.sock, then I can connect to it using:
>
> busctl --address=unix:path=/tmp/dbus-test.sock tree
>
>but if I try that for the libvirt-started dbus-daemon I cannot, and it
>does not matter whether that is with or without your patches. So there
>is something else going on, but the patch that is trying to keep the
>connection to the dbus-daemon exposes it. I guess something is wrong on
>my side and there is no reason for it to block these patches.
>
>Even when I added DBUS_VERBOSE=1 to the libvirt-started dbus-daemon the
>logfile was empty, I guess I need to recompile dbus with that enabled.
>
>I'll let you know if I figure it out. Not today though.
>
>Have a nice day,
>Martin