I am currently working on a PXE bootable environment that I would like to put into revision control.
The filesystem and server will both be Linux (SLES if you must know).
I've considered using some kind of hack that stores file ownership/permissions via getfacl -R -P, but this doesn't cover symlinks or devices. And it's kind of ugly.
Tricky things that I need to be covered:
file ownership
file permissions (ACLs are not necessary)
devices
symlinks
Are there any revision control systems that will cover my needs for this?
Note: Rather than a "block volume", I need to put a "set of files" into revision control and keep individual changes.
I'm pretty sure that Perforce will handle all of those things. I believe another group at work uses it for nearly the exact same purpose that you list (storing a variant of linux for an embedded device).
etckeeper is a tool that puts the contents of /etc under revision control (with a choice of revision control systems). It has a layer on top that takes care of permissions, symlinks, etc. I'm not sure it if handles device nodes - probably not - but it could probably easily be extended to do so.
You may find that this tool can be adapted to handle an entire filesystem.
You can use versioning filesystems, that is, filesystems with version control built into the filesystem code itself.
Some examples:
NILFS
Ext3cow
In principle, any filesystem that supports snapshots could be used.
More information: Versioning file system on Wikipedia.
If your file system will not be extremely huge, you might just store it all in a single file, version control that binary file, and then mount that to work with it. It won't give you pretty file-level control, but it might work acceptably for some tasks.
Related
I am looking for a program that would allow me to mirror one partition to another disk (something like RAID1) for Linux. It doesn't have to be a windowed application, it can be a console application, I just want what is in one place to be mirrored to another.
It would be nice if it were possible to mirror a specific folder that I would care for instead of copying everything from the given partition.
I was looking on the internet, but it's hard to find something that would give such opportunities, hence the idea to ask such a question.
I do not want to make fake RAID on Linux or hardware RAID because I read that if the motherboard fails then it is best to have the same second one to recover data.
I will be grateful for every suggestion :)
You can check my script "CopyDirFile" written in bash, which is located on github.
You can perform a replication (mirroring) task of any source folder to another destination folder (deleting a file in the source folder means deleting it in the destination folder).
The script also allows you to create copy tasks (deleted files in the source folder will not be deleted in the target folder).
The tasks are executed in background at a specified time, not all the time, frequency is set by the user when creating the task.
You can also set the task to start automatically when the user logs on.
All the necessary information can be found in the README file in repository.
If I understood you correctly, I think it meets your requirements.
Linux has standard support for software RAID: mdraid.
It allows you to bundle two disk devices into a RAID 1 device (among other things); you then create a filesystem on top of that device.
LVM offers another way to do software RAID; it doesn't seem to be very popular, but it's certainly supported.
(If your system supports hardware RAID, on the motherboard or with a separate RAID controller, Linux can use that, too, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking here.)
The thing is, I want to track if a user tries to open a file on a shared account. I'm looking for any record/technique that helps me know if the concerned file is opened, at run time.
I want to create a script which monitors if the file is open, and if it is, I want it to send an alert to a particular email address. The file I'm thinking of is a regular file.
I tried using lsof | grep filename for checking if a file is open in gedit, but the command doesn't return anything.
Actually, I'm trying this for a pet project, and thus the question.
The command lsof -t filename shows the IDs of all processes that have the particular file opened. lsof -t filename | wc -w gives you the number of processes currently accessing the file.
The fact that a file has been read into an editor like gedit does not mean that the file is still open. The editor most likely opens the file, reads its contents and then closes the file. After you have edited the file you have the choice to overwrite the existing file or save as another file.
You could (in addition of other answers) use the Linux-specific inotify(7) facilities.
I am understanding that you want to track one (or a few) particular given file, with a fixed file path (actually a given i-node). E.g. you would want to track when /var/run/foobar is accessed or modified, and do something when that happens
In particular, you might want to install and use incrond(8) and configure it thru incrontab(5)
If you want to run a script when some given file (on a native local, e.g. Ext4, BTRS, ... but not NFS file system) is accessed or modified, use inotify incrond is exactly done for that purpose.
PS. AFAIK, inotify don't work well for remote network files, e.g. NFS filesystems (in particular when another NFS client machine is modifying a file).
If the files you are fond of are somehow source files, you might be interested by revision control systems (like git) or builder systems (like GNU make); in a certain way these tools are related to file modification.
You could also have the particular file system sits in some FUSE filesystem, and write your own FUSE daemon.
If you can restrict and modify the programs accessing the file, you might want to use advisory locking, e.g. flock(2), lockf(3).
Perhaps the data sitting in the file should be in some database (e.g. sqlite or a real DBMS like PostGreSQL ou MongoDB). ACID properties are important ....
Notice that the filesystem and the mount options may matter a lot.
You might want to use the stat(1) command.
It is difficult to help more without understanding the real use case and the motivation. You should avoid some XY problem
Probably, the workflow is wrong (having a shared file between several users able to write it), and you should approach the overall issue in some other way. For a pet project I would at least recommend using some advisory lock, and access & modify the information only thru your own programs (perhaps setuid) using flock (this excludes ordinary editors like gedit or commands like cat ...). However, your implicit use case seems to be well suited for a DBMS approach (a database does not have to contain a lot of data, it might be tiny), or some index locked file like GDBM library is handling.
Remember that on POSIX systems and Linux, several processes can access (and even modify) the same file simultaneously (unless you use some locking or synchronization).
Reading the Advanced Linux Programming book (freely available) would give you a broader picture (but it does not mention inotify which appeared aften the book was written).
You can use ls -lrt, it displays the last RW operations in the shell. Then you can conclude whether the file is opened or not. Make sure that you are in the exact directory.
I want to write a shell script to monitor changes (rename and delete) in files in a directory.
You probably should learn how to use a revision control system, a.k.a. version control system. I strongly recommend using git; I'm guessing that you need a VCS....
You may want to use Linux-specific inotify(7) facilities, e.g. with incrontab(5) files for icrond(8)
(it might not work well for network file systems like NFS; it is working better on Linux local file systems like Ext4 or BTRFS or XFS)
I have an application that runs on an embedded Linux device and every now and then changes are made to the software and occasionally also to the root file system or even the installed kernel.
In the current update system the contents of the old application directory are simply deleted and the new files are copied over it. When changes to the root file system have been made the new files are delivered as part of the update and simply copied over the old ones.
Now, there are several problems with the current approach and I am looking for ways to improve the situation:
The root file system of the target that is used to create file system images is not versioned (I don't think we even have the original rootfs).
The rootfs files that go into the update are manually selected (instead of a diff)
The update continually grows and that becomes a pita. There is now a split between update/upgrade where the upgrade contains larger rootfs changes.
I have the impression that the consistency checks in an update are rather fragile if at all implemented.
Requirements are:
The application update package should not be too large and it must also be able to change the root file system in the case modifications have been made.
An upgrade can be much larger and only contains the stuff that goes into the root file system (like new libraries, kernel, etc.). An update can require an upgrade to have been installed.
Could the upgrade contain the whole root file system and simply do a dd on the flash drive of the target?
Creating the update/upgrade packages should be as automatic as possible.
I absolutely need some way to do versioning of the root file system. This has to be done in a way, that I can compute some sort of diff from it which can be used to update the rootfs of the target device.
I already looked into Subversion since we use that for our source code but that is inappropriate for the Linux root file system (file permissions, special files, etc.).
I've now created some shell scripts that can give me something similar to an svn diff but I would really like to know if there already exists a working and tested solution for this.
Using such diff's I guess an Upgrade would then simply become a package that contains incremental updates based on a known root file system state.
What are your thoughts and ideas on this? How would you implement such a system? I prefer a simple solution that can be implemented in not too much time.
I believe you are looking wrong at the problem - any update which is non atomic (e.g. dd a file system image, replace files in a directory) is broken by design - if the power goes off in the middle of an update the system is a brick and for embedded system, power can go off in the middle of an upgrade.
I have written a white paper on how to correctly do upgrade/update on embedded Linux systems [1]. It was presented at OLS. You can find the paper here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2005/ols2005v1-pages-21-36.pdf
[1] Ben-Yossef, Gilad. "Building Murphy-compatible embedded Linux systems." Linux Symposium. 2005.
I absolutely agree that an update must be atomic - I have started recently a Open Source project with the goal to provide a safe and flexible way for software management, with both local and remote update. I know my answer comes very late, but it could maybe help you on next projects.
You can find sources for "swupdate" (the name of the project) at github.com/sbabic/swupdate.
Stefano
Currently, there are quite a few Open Source embedded Linux update tools growing, with different focus each.
Another one that is worth being mentioned is RAUC, which focuses on handling safe and atomic installations of signed update bundles on your target while being really flexible in the way you adapt it to your application and environment. The sources are on GitHub: https://github.com/rauc/rauc
In general, a good overview and comparison of current update solutions you might find on the Yocto Project Wiki page about system updates:
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/System_Update
Atomicity is critical for embedded devices, one of the reasons highlighted is power loss; but there could be others like hardware/network issues.
Atomicity is perhaps a bit misunderstood; this is a definition I use in the context of updaters:
An update is always either completed fully, or not at all
No software component besides the updater ever sees a half installed update
Full image update with a dual A/B partition layout is the simplest and most proven way to achieve this.
For Embedded Linux there are several software components that you might want to update and different designs to choose from; there is a newer paper on this available here: https://mender.io/resources/Software%20Updates.pdf
File moved to: https://mender.io/resources/guides-and-whitepapers/_resources/Software%2520Updates.pdf
If you are working with the Yocto Project you might be interested in Mender.io - the open source project I am working on. It consists of a client and server and the goal is to make it much faster and easier to integrate an updater into an existing environment; without needing to redesign too much or spend time on custom/homegrown coding. It also will allow you to manage updates centrally with the server.
You can journal an update and divide your update flash into two slots. Power failure always returns you to the currently executing slot. The last step is to modify the journal value. Non atomic and no way to make it brick. Even it if fails at the moment of writing the journal flags. There is no such thing as an atomic update. Ever. Never seen it in my life. Iphone, adroid, my network switch -- none of them are atomic. If you don't have enough room to do that kind of design, then fix the design.
I have a linux busybox based system on a chip. I want to provide an update to users in the field and this requires updating some files in /lib /usr/bin and /etc. I don't think that it's safe to simple untar the files directly. Is there a safe way to do this including /lib files that may be in use?
Some things I strongly prefer in embedded systems:
a) Have the root file system be a ramdisk uncompressed from an image in flash. This is great because you can experimentally monkey around with it to your heart's content and if you mess up, all you need is a reboot to get back to the flashed configuration. When you have tested a set of change you like, you generate a new compressed root filesystem image and flash that.
b) Use a bootloader such as u-boot to do your updates - flashing a new complete image - rather than trying to change the linux system while it is running. Though since the flashed copy isn't live, you can actually flash it while running. If you flash a bad version, u-boot is still there to flash a good one.
c) Processors which have mask-rom UART (or even USB) bootloaders, making the system un-brickable - nothing more than a laptop and a serial cable or usb/serial converter is ever needed to do maintenance (ie, get a working u-boot image on the flash, which you then use to get a working linux kernel+compressed root fs image on it)
Ideally your flash device is big enough to partition into two complete filesystems and each update updates the other side (plus copying over config files if necessary) and updates the boot configuration to boot from the updated side.
Less ideal is to update in-place but have some means of detecting boot failure (watchdog that's not touched until after boot, for example) and have a smaller, fallback partition which is capable of accepting another update and fixing the primary partition.
As far as the in-place update of a live filesystem, just use a real installer (which will move the target files out of the way before replacing them to avoid the problem you describe).
You received two excellent answers above and I Strongly encourage you to do what you were advised to.
There is, however, a more simple way. In a matter of fact you can just untar your libraries, provided that the process that does this is statically linked.