Please don’t hard-code assumptions

Posted Jan 30, 2019 4:41 UTC (Wed) by filbranden (guest, #87848)
In reply to: Please don’t hard-code assumptions by akkornel
Parent article: Systemd as tragedy

To be fair, there is a workaround for if you have uids in that uid range (flocking files named after the uids, which granted doesn't really scale that well and requires you to keep a locking process around for it.)

Also, most of the developers there agreed that there should be some dynamic configs for your particular case. (They haven't been implemented yet, but I find there's agreement that there should be some.) So I imagine your problem will get solved eventually.

The uid range clash is mainly for systemd Dynamic Users and that feature is not really being used in the wild yet (there are some more large issues with it, such as D-Bus handling of the dynamic owner user/group of the service.) So just not using any Dynamic Users for now is definitely an option for you too.

In short, this should be addressed in time.

Please don’t hard-code assumptions

Posted Jan 31, 2019 17:58 UTC (Thu) by akkornel (subscriber, #75292) [Link]

> To be fair, there is a workaround for if you have uids in that uid range (flocking files named after the uids, which granted doesn't really scale that well and requires you to keep a locking process around for it.)

Yeah, from what I could tell, I would need to have one or more processes that would maintain `flock()` 2,498 files. That seemed like a bit of a stretch.

> Also, most of the developers there agreed that there should be some dynamic configs for your particular case. (They haven't been implemented yet, but I find there's agreement that there should be some.) So I imagine your problem will get solved eventually.

Ah, thank for for the insight! I wasn't really sure because the GitHub issue is still tagged 'needs-discussion'. It hasn't yet been tagged anything else (like 'rfe'), so my impression was that there was not yet a consensus (or agreement), and that my RFE was still at risk for being closed.

> The uid range clash is mainly for systemd Dynamic Users and that feature is not really being used in the wild yet (there are some more large issues with it, such as D-Bus handling of the dynamic owner user/group of the service.) So just not using any Dynamic Users for now is definitely an option for you too.

Indeed. My biggest concern is that, the longer this takes, the harder it will be to get any change brought back into the distros we use.