Not cleaning /var/tmp by default
Bug #1870585 reported by
Bryan Quigley
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
systemd (Debian) |
Fix Released
|
Unknown
|
|||
systemd (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
1) 20.04
2) 245.2-1ubuntu2
3) I expect /var/tmp to be cleaned up in some way.
4) It's commented out per https:/
In sosreport was comparing the difference between /tmp (Ubuntu/Debian) and /var/tmp (RH) and determined that as long as /var/tmp gets cleaned on a regular basis we would prefer /var/tmp.
The bug that appears to have prompted the disabling was fixed a long time ago, can we have this 30d delete re-enabled by default?
tags: | added: sosreport sts |
tags: | added: ddstreet |
Changed in systemd (Debian): | |
status: | Unknown → New |
Changed in systemd (Ubuntu): | |
importance: | Undecided → Wishlist |
Changed in systemd (Debian): | |
status: | New → Fix Released |
To post a comment you must log in.
> 4) It's commented out per https:/ /bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 773313
no, that's regarding a bug with the related x entries; the difference in behavior from upstream originates from https:/ /bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 675422
To be clear:
upstream behavior:
/tmp:
-by default, /tmp is a tmpfs (via tmp.mount service), so everything under it is lost each boot
-however, if the tmp.mount service is disabled/removed, a 'normal' /tmp dir is created
-with tmp.mount disabled, /tmp is *not* cleaned each boot - items are persistent
-/tmp content is cleaned with 10d aging time
/var/tmp:
-there is no corresponding tmp.mount for /var/tmp, so it is just a normal (temp) dir
-it is *not* cleaned each boot - items are persistent (this is correct per FHS)
-/var/tmp content is cleaned with 30d aging time
debian/ubuntu behavior: systemd- private- * content is configured separately as R!, which removes just those dirs, only at boot
/tmp
-debian removes (actually, moves) the tmp.mount service so it is not available (by default)
-/tmp is thus a 'normal' (temp) dir
-debian changes the tmp.conf entry for /tmp to be 'D' instead of 'q'
-because it is 'D', all its content is removed each boot
-debian removes the aging time so /tmp is *not* cleaned by age!
/var/tmp
-debian removes this tmpfiles.d entry completely, so this dir is NOT managed by tmpfiles
-the dir is not created by systemd, but by 'base-files' pkg
-/var/tmp content is *never cleaned up by systemd ever*
-as a specific exception, /var/tmp/
There is also a minor difference in that default upstream uses 'q' which (according to the docs) only has a meaningful difference for systems with a btrfs / fs.
> In sosreport was comparing the difference between /tmp (Ubuntu/Debian) and /var/tmp (RH) and determined that as long as /var/tmp gets cleaned on a regular basis we would prefer /var/tmp.
Also note that, except Debian/Ubuntu, systems using systemd will, by default, have /tmp configured as tmpfs, so dropping really large sosreports in there may not be good.
Personally, I think there are really 3 changes to consider here, and they should be considered first for Debian and then for Ubuntu:
1. should /tmp change to a tmpfs, as upstream systemd defaults to?
2. should files under /tmp be removed with 10-day aging, as upstream systemd defaults to?
3. should files under /var/tmp be removed with 30-day aging, as upstream systemd defaults to?
Again, personally, I think #1 is a significant policy change and I don't really see a strong reason to change our default behavior.
For #2, since it's configured to be cleaned out each boot, I think a age-based cleaning policy isn't as important. A 10-day aging policy probably makes more sense when matched with upstream's default of using tmpfs.
However, for #3, as /var/tmp is persistent storage, I tend to think *some* kind of age-based cleanup does make sense. I don't know if 30 days is the right number to move to from our current never-clean, but personally I think some finite cleanup policy would be good to set by default.
Have you opened a Debian bug?