Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
bullseye: systemd-networkd-wait-online timeouts
743 views
Skip to first unread message
Jochen Spieker
Aug 18, 2021, 4:00:05 PM8/18/21
to
Hi,
I upgraded my virtual server to bullseye already and I found one issue
in the logs:
Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
For some reason systemd does not (fully?) recognize that the system is
online. The network is still configured using ifupdown with this
interfaces(5) file. I know it looks weird, but I have no control over it
on this system. The file is provided by my hosting provider:
| # This configuration file is auto-generated.
| # WARNING: Do not edit this file, otherwise your changes will be lost.
| # Please edit template /etc/network/interfaces.template instead.
|
| auto lo
| iface lo inet loopback
|
| # Auto generated venet0 interfaces
| auto venet0
| iface venet0 inet static
| address 127.0.0.1
| netmask 255.255.255.255
| broadcast 0.0.0.0
| up route add default dev venet0
| auto venet0:0
| iface venet0:0 inet static
| address 85.x.y.z
| netmask 255.255.255.255
|
|
| iface venet0 inet6 static
| address 2a01:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead/128
| up ip -6 r a default dev venet0
Systemd thinks the devices (even lo) are in state "pending":
# networkctl status -a
● 1: lo
Link File: n/a
Network File: n/a
Type: loopback
State: carrier (pending)
HW Address: 00:00:00:00:00:00
MTU: 65536
QDisc: noqueue
IPv6 Address Generation Mode: eui64
Queue Length (Tx/Rx): 1/1
Address: 127.0.0.1
::1
● 2: venet0
Link File: n/a
Network File: n/a
Type: void
State: routable (pending)
MTU: 1500
QDisc: noqueue
IPv6 Address Generation Mode: eui64
Queue Length (Tx/Rx): 1/1
Auto negotiation: no
Speed: 10Gbps
Duplex: full
Port: tp
Address: 85.x.y.z
127.0.0.1
2a01:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead
Is there anything I can do about this without changing
/etc/network/interfaces? As far as I understand, I cannot switch to
systemd network configuration as long as the interfaces file exists.
Regards,
Jochen
--
If nightclub doormen recognised me I would be more fulfilled.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
I upgraded my virtual server to bullseye already and I found one issue
in the logs:
Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
For some reason systemd does not (fully?) recognize that the system is
online. The network is still configured using ifupdown with this
interfaces(5) file. I know it looks weird, but I have no control over it
on this system. The file is provided by my hosting provider:
| # This configuration file is auto-generated.
| # WARNING: Do not edit this file, otherwise your changes will be lost.
| # Please edit template /etc/network/interfaces.template instead.
|
| auto lo
| iface lo inet loopback
|
| # Auto generated venet0 interfaces
| auto venet0
| iface venet0 inet static
| address 127.0.0.1
| netmask 255.255.255.255
| broadcast 0.0.0.0
| up route add default dev venet0
| auto venet0:0
| iface venet0:0 inet static
| address 85.x.y.z
| netmask 255.255.255.255
|
|
| iface venet0 inet6 static
| address 2a01:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead/128
| up ip -6 r a default dev venet0
Systemd thinks the devices (even lo) are in state "pending":
# networkctl status -a
● 1: lo
Link File: n/a
Network File: n/a
Type: loopback
State: carrier (pending)
HW Address: 00:00:00:00:00:00
MTU: 65536
QDisc: noqueue
IPv6 Address Generation Mode: eui64
Queue Length (Tx/Rx): 1/1
Address: 127.0.0.1
::1
● 2: venet0
Link File: n/a
Network File: n/a
Type: void
State: routable (pending)
MTU: 1500
QDisc: noqueue
IPv6 Address Generation Mode: eui64
Queue Length (Tx/Rx): 1/1
Auto negotiation: no
Speed: 10Gbps
Duplex: full
Port: tp
Address: 85.x.y.z
127.0.0.1
2a01:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead:beef:dead
Is there anything I can do about this without changing
/etc/network/interfaces? As far as I understand, I cannot switch to
systemd network configuration as long as the interfaces file exists.
Regards,
Jochen
--
If nightclub doormen recognised me I would be more fulfilled.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Charles Curley
Aug 18, 2021, 5:40:05 PM8/18/21
to
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:36:30 +0200
Jochen Spieker <m...@well-adjusted.de> wrote:
> Is there anything I can do about this without changing
> /etc/network/interfaces? As far as I understand, I cannot switch to
> systemd network configuration as long as the interfaces file exists.
Can you get anywhere by editing the template?
Jochen Spieker <m...@well-adjusted.de> wrote:
> Is there anything I can do about this without changing
> /etc/network/interfaces? As far as I understand, I cannot switch to
> systemd network configuration as long as the interfaces file exists.
Also, this interfaces file assigns address 127.0.0.1 to the interface
venet0. Since that block (127.0.0.0/8, I believe) is reserved for the
loopback device (interface lo), and is assigned automatically to lo,
this setup is assigning 127.0.0.1 to both lo and venet:0. And that
strikes me as a recipe for problems.
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Jochen Spieker
Aug 19, 2021, 6:00:05 AM8/19/21
to
Charles Curley:
assume it only exists in the hosting provider's infrastructure.
> Also, this interfaces file assigns address 127.0.0.1 to the interface
> venet0. Since that block (127.0.0.0/8, I believe) is reserved for the
> loopback device (interface lo), and is assigned automatically to lo,
> this setup is assigning 127.0.0.1 to both lo and venet:0. And that
> strikes me as a recipe for problems.
I totally agree and I have no idea why they are doing it this way. I
still would like to know why systemd does not recognize that the
interface configuration using ifupdown was successful and the the system
actually is online.
J.
--
Tony Blair is a hypnotised self-seeking scarecrow just like all the
rest.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:36:30 +0200
> Jochen Spieker <m...@well-adjusted.de> wrote:
>
>> Is there anything I can do about this without changing
>> /etc/network/interfaces? As far as I understand, I cannot switch to
>> systemd network configuration as long as the interfaces file exists.
>
> Can you get anywhere by editing the template?
I do not have access to the template. It does not exist on my VM and I
> Jochen Spieker <m...@well-adjusted.de> wrote:
>
>> Is there anything I can do about this without changing
>> /etc/network/interfaces? As far as I understand, I cannot switch to
>> systemd network configuration as long as the interfaces file exists.
>
> Can you get anywhere by editing the template?
assume it only exists in the hosting provider's infrastructure.
> Also, this interfaces file assigns address 127.0.0.1 to the interface
> venet0. Since that block (127.0.0.0/8, I believe) is reserved for the
> loopback device (interface lo), and is assigned automatically to lo,
> this setup is assigning 127.0.0.1 to both lo and venet:0. And that
> strikes me as a recipe for problems.
still would like to know why systemd does not recognize that the
interface configuration using ifupdown was successful and the the system
actually is online.
J.
--
Tony Blair is a hypnotised self-seeking scarecrow just like all the
rest.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Andy Smith
Aug 19, 2021, 4:10:04 PM8/19/21
to
Hi Jochen,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
>
> For some reason systemd does not (fully?) recognize that the system is
> online.
I don't know yet about bullseye but in buster systemd does assume
that you are online when using ifupdown unless you enable the
"ifupdown-wait-online" service, which actually waits for every
interface marked auto be be ready before allowing "network-online"
target to be reached.
Is that service enabled? If you disable it, what happens? I expect
systemd to assume it is online.
Also are you absolutely sure that you aren't using systemd-networkd
and/or NetworkManager and there isn't any .link files for systemd
anywhere, that it's purely ifupdown?
May be worth asking your hosting provider as well because uf they
are mandating how your /etc/network/interfaces looks (and its use)
then they need to know how to make it play nice with systemd in
Debian 11.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
>
> For some reason systemd does not (fully?) recognize that the system is
> online.
that you are online when using ifupdown unless you enable the
"ifupdown-wait-online" service, which actually waits for every
interface marked auto be be ready before allowing "network-online"
target to be reached.
Is that service enabled? If you disable it, what happens? I expect
systemd to assume it is online.
Also are you absolutely sure that you aren't using systemd-networkd
and/or NetworkManager and there isn't any .link files for systemd
anywhere, that it's purely ifupdown?
May be worth asking your hosting provider as well because uf they
are mandating how your /etc/network/interfaces looks (and its use)
then they need to know how to make it play nice with systemd in
Debian 11.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Jochen Spieker
Aug 20, 2021, 6:00:06 PM8/20/21
to
Andy Smith:
# systemctl status ifupdown-wait-online.service
● ifupdown-wait-online.service - Wait for network to be configured by ifupdown
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/ifupdown-wait-online.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
Active: active (exited) since Sun 2021-08-15 00:16:58 CEST; 5 days ago
Main PID: 79 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
Tasks: 0 (limit: 105)
Memory: 0B
CGroup: /system.slice/ifupdown-wait-online.service
Aug 15 00:16:58 xxxxxxxx.stratoserver.net systemd[1]: Finished Wait for network to be configured by ifupdown.
Warning: journal has been rotated since unit was started, output may be incomplete.
# systemctl disable --now ifupdown-wait-online.service
Removed /etc/systemd/system/network-online.target.wants/ifupdown-wait-online.service.
# /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online --timeout=2 --any
empty and /etc/systemd/networkd.conf only contains comments, so I think
I am sure.
> May be worth asking your hosting provider as well because uf they
> are mandating how your /etc/network/interfaces looks (and its use)
> then they need to know how to make it play nice with systemd in
> Debian 11.
That is probable the right approach. Thanks for your suggestions!
J.
--
No-one appears to be able to help me.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
>> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
>> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
>>
>> For some reason systemd does not (fully?) recognize that the system is
>> online.
>
> I don't know yet about bullseye but in buster systemd does assume
> that you are online when using ifupdown unless you enable the
> "ifupdown-wait-online" service, which actually waits for every
> interface marked auto be be ready before allowing "network-online"
> target to be reached.
>
> Is that service enabled? If you disable it, what happens? I expect
> systemd to assume it is online.
Sounds like a good idea! But:
>
>> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
>> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
>>
>> For some reason systemd does not (fully?) recognize that the system is
>> online.
>
> I don't know yet about bullseye but in buster systemd does assume
> that you are online when using ifupdown unless you enable the
> "ifupdown-wait-online" service, which actually waits for every
> interface marked auto be be ready before allowing "network-online"
> target to be reached.
>
> Is that service enabled? If you disable it, what happens? I expect
> systemd to assume it is online.
# systemctl status ifupdown-wait-online.service
● ifupdown-wait-online.service - Wait for network to be configured by ifupdown
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/ifupdown-wait-online.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
Active: active (exited) since Sun 2021-08-15 00:16:58 CEST; 5 days ago
Main PID: 79 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
Tasks: 0 (limit: 105)
Memory: 0B
CGroup: /system.slice/ifupdown-wait-online.service
Aug 15 00:16:58 xxxxxxxx.stratoserver.net systemd[1]: Finished Wait for network to be configured by ifupdown.
Warning: journal has been rotated since unit was started, output may be incomplete.
# systemctl disable --now ifupdown-wait-online.service
Removed /etc/systemd/system/network-online.target.wants/ifupdown-wait-online.service.
# /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online --timeout=2 --any
Event loop failed: Connection timed out
> Also are you absolutely sure that you aren't using systemd-networkd
> and/or NetworkManager and there isn't any .link files for systemd
> anywhere, that it's purely ifupdown?
The package network-manager is not installed, /etc/systemd/network is
> and/or NetworkManager and there isn't any .link files for systemd
> anywhere, that it's purely ifupdown?
empty and /etc/systemd/networkd.conf only contains comments, so I think
I am sure.
> May be worth asking your hosting provider as well because uf they
> are mandating how your /etc/network/interfaces looks (and its use)
> then they need to know how to make it play nice with systemd in
> Debian 11.
J.
--
No-one appears to be able to help me.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Jochen Spieker
Aug 25, 2021, 2:30:05 AM8/25/21
to
Jochen Spieker:
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50unattended-upgrades:
| // Download and install upgrades only on non-metered connection
| // (i.e. skip or gracefully stop updates on a metered connection)
| Unattended-Upgrade::Skip-Updates-On-Metered-Connections "false";
This way I still get the errors in the logs, but apt continues fetching
updates as intended. Since this is a VPS there is no risk that the
system will suddenly start using a metered connection.
J.
--
If I was Mark Chapman I would have shot John Lennon with a water pistol.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
>
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
I was able to at least work around this problem by editing the file
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 systemd-networkd-wait-online[936688]: Event loop failed: Connection timed out
> Aug 18 10:59:20 h2907737 apt-helper[936686]: E: Sub-process /lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online returned an error code (1)
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50unattended-upgrades:
| // Download and install upgrades only on non-metered connection
| // (i.e. skip or gracefully stop updates on a metered connection)
| Unattended-Upgrade::Skip-Updates-On-Metered-Connections "false";
This way I still get the errors in the logs, but apt continues fetching
updates as intended. Since this is a VPS there is no risk that the
system will suddenly start using a metered connection.
J.
--
If I was Mark Chapman I would have shot John Lennon with a water pistol.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
0 new messages