Re: "etcupdate extract" -- Failed to build new tree.
- In reply to: Sulev-Madis Silber : "Re: "etcupdate extract" -- Failed to build new tree."
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2025 09:29:00 UTC
Seems like someone "optimized" "./mk_cmds" by changing permissions to "chmod 0755 m/mk_cmds*", then directly calling "./mk_cmds". Within older versions of "etcupdate" it was executed by "/bin/sh ./mk_cmds". "/bin/sh ./mk_cmds" circumvents "noexec". But it makes it possible to compile sources without executing anything within /usr/src directly. But: while /usr/src is mounted zroot/usr/src on /usr/src (zfs, local, noexec, nosuid, nfsv4acls) /usr/obj is mounted zroot/usr on /usr (zfs, local, nfsv4acls) And both mounts are what FreeBSD on zfs with GPT ( https://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot) expects (copied right from the handbook pages): zfs create -o mountpoint=/tmp -o exec=on -o setuid=off zroot/tmp zfs create -o canmount=off -o mountpoint=/usr zroot/usr zfs create zroot/usr/home zfs create -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/usr/src zfs create zroot/usr/obj zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/ports -o setuid=off zroot/usr/ports zfs create -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/usr/ports/distfiles zfs create -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/usr/ports/packages zfs create -o canmount=off -o mountpoint=/var zroot/var zfs create -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/var/audit zfs create -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/var/crash zfs create -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/var/log zfs create -o atime=on -o exec=off -o setuid=off zroot/var/mail zfs create -o exec=on -o setuid=off zroot/var/tmp Since "etcupdate" worked about four months ago, then it started to stop working, something has changed with how it works. For me it looks like there creating mk_cmds within /usr/src, instead within /usr/obj. This was ok as long as mk_cmds was called with "/bin/sh ./mk_cmds". As soon as this was changed to "chmod 0755 mk_cmds*; ./mk_cmds" it broke. I've tested a lot last days. It is not "noexec" set for "/usr/src". It is something changed just before forking "stable/15". Going back to this makes it working again (as it does copying "etcupdate" from "stable/14". On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 2:49 AM Sulev-Madis Silber < freebsd-current-freebsd-org111@ketas.si.pri.ee> wrote: > > > On November 8, 2025 10:36:43 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Schweikle < > tschweikle@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 PM Sulev-Madis Silber < > >freebsd-current-freebsd-org111@ketas.si.pri.ee> wrote: > > > >> first thing that comes to my mind... > >> > >> is there any other fs where noexec is used? > >> > >The other systems are set up the same way, mounting /usr/src > >zroot/usr/src on /usr/src (zfs, local, noexec, nosuid, nfsv4acls) > > > > > >> especially on which the etcupdate actually runs on? > >> > >It runs on three other systems: > >- stable/13 > >- stable/14 > >and a pre stable/15 (before ALPHA was out and the branch done). > > > >It does not run if executed on a > >- stable/15 > >- current > > > >in both cases "make buildetc" works as expected if not called from inside > >"etcupdate". > > > > > >> i haven't so far studied the whole thing but if you have put noexec > >> everywhere, including tmp dirs or whatever etcupdate uses, it could be > it! > >> > >noexec does not touch "root", but standard users. Does etcupdate switch to > >some other user while executing? Does it do so before branching stable/15? > > unfortunately noexec don't even let root execute anything directly > > read works, shell scripts, makefiles > > if you have other fses in that very same machine mounted noexec then this > code will fail. and it indeed does give permission denied > > i don't know where mk_cmds is. perhaps in obj? i'm currently not debugging > this > > whether it should be able to run noexec, no idea, not everything can be > > noexec is there by purpose i assume, but maybe it could be temporary > disabled > > btw noexec as a security measure can be also bypassed > > tell us if disabling noexec on fses helped > > that's also fun thing, that not many add, or if they do, they know what > happens. many building type tasks like to execute something in dirs > > you didn't tell that you had noexec on and nobody asked either so maybe > it's noexec for all that time and you had to do manual work > > i hope it's fixed now!!! > > > > >And just switching into /usr/src, then executing "make etcupdate" does > call > >"./mk_cmds" and it does not fail because it is forbidden to run -- it > runs. > > > >just a wild guess. noexec is not always used and it often blows up random > >> thing unexpectedly. others have it disabled and therefore don't see it > >> > >> > >> > >> On November 8, 2025 8:21:22 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Schweikle < > >> tschweikle@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >Looking at the log from etcupdate I found it failing with > >> > > >> >chmod 755 mk_cmds > >> >rm -f et-h-ss_err.et et-h-ss_err.c et-h-ss_err.h > >> >cp /usr/src/crypto/krb5/src/util/ss/ss_err.et et-h-ss_err.et > >> >compile_et -d /usr/src/crypto/krb5/src/util/et --textdomain mit-krb5 > >> >et-h-ss_err.et > >> >+ /usr/bin/awk -f /usr/src/crypto/krb5/src/util/et/et_h.awk > >> >'outfile=et-h-ss_err.h' et-h-ss_err.et > >> >+ /usr/bin/awk -f /usr/src/crypto/krb5/src/util/et/et_c.awk > >> >'outfile=et-h-ss_err.c' 'textdomain=mit-krb5' 'localedir=' > et-h-ss_err.et > >> >mv et-h-ss_err.h ss_err.h > >> >rm -f et-h-ss_err.et et-h-ss_err.h > >> >./mk_cmds /usr/src/crypto/krb5/src/util/ss/std_rqs.ct > >> >make[4]: exec(./mk_cmds): Permission denied > >> >*** Error code 1 > >> > > >> >Stop. > >> >make[4]: stopped making "all" in /usr/src/krb5/util/ss > >> >*** Error code 1 > >> > > >> >Stop. > >> >make[3]: stopped making "bootstrap-tools" in /usr/src > >> > 10.16 real 8.75 user 1.04 sys > >> >*** Error code 1 > >> > > >> >Stop. > >> >make[2]: stopped making "_bootstrap-tools" in /usr/src > >> >*** Error code 1 > >> > > >> >Stop. > >> >make[1]: stopped making "buildetc" in /usr/src > >> >*** Error code 1 > >> > > >> >Stop. > >> >make: stopped making "buildetc" in /usr/src > >> > > >> >It fails, because it is not allowed to "exec ./mk_cmds", after setting > >> >"chmod 0755" for "mk_cmds"? Within "/usr/src" "mk_cmds" just does not > >> exist > >> >– as long as "find /usr/src -iname '*mk_cmds*' -print" would be able to > >> >find it: > >> >/usr/src # find . -iname '*/mk_cmds/*' > >> >/usr/src # > >> > > >> >"/usr/src" is mounted > >> >zroot/usr/src on /usr/src (zfs, local, noexec, nosuid, nfsv4acls) > >> > > >> >AND what makes it even more mysterious: > >> ># cd /usr/src > >> ># make buildetc > >> > > >> >works without reporting any error. If called from "etcupdate extract" > it > >> >fails. > >> > > >> >It works for FreeBSD: > >> >- stable/13 > >> >- stable/14 > >> > > >> >but not for: > >> >- stable/15 > >> > > >> >Full log is attached. > >> > > >> >On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 4:00 PM Sulev-Madis Silber < > >> >freebsd-current-freebsd-org111@ketas.si.pri.ee> wrote: > >> > > >> >> something bad clearly happened in that machine if it's able to > selfhost > >> >> build itself and work, except etcupdate. and that for a long time > >> >> > >> >> i don't see any reason getting pissed about his machine mysteriously > not > >> >> working, despite i haven't broken any machine myself since i > installed > >> >> first fbsd, 4.6 > >> >> > >> >> unsure how to go from here. unsure if src.conf or make.conf matters > here > >> >> > >> >> if this happens in currently actively supported fbsd release, maybe > >> >> etcupdate needs a bugfix to cleanup for edge cases > >> >> > >> >> if it's in unsupported, that should not cause any "pissages" either. > fix > >> >> is somewhere > >> >> > >> >> so, the admin updated files manually because he was not able to get > it > >> >> working? i bet you can recreate it and fix it for future cases > >> >> > >> >> since i haven't ever broken etcupdate, i don't know which data it > uses > >> as > >> >> input. but seems like it reads wrong data out of somewhere. and > entire > >> >> machine works, except this? > >> >> > >> >> i mean if this was bad upgrade leftover, how to fix? i mean doesn't > >> >> etcupdate get rework now, for pkgbase. while we do that, maybe it > could > >> be > >> >> made to handle this. or maybe even given non-destructive nuke mode so > >> >> people can start clean > >> >> > >> >> i don't think it's really entirely user error, considering he didn't > >> break > >> >> the machine > >> >> > >> >> i'm curious too. at worst you could do other install in another > machine > >> >> and compare dirs as something must differ there. then, according to > >> >> findings, fix the old machine. maybe while doing this, some new > bugfix > >> idea > >> >> appears > >> >> > >> >> but hell with getting mad over machine. he's pissed too, everyone's > >> >> pissed, server is not working and no productive work have been done > here > >> >> > >> >> maybe something got lost in translation too > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- Thomas