From 9af2c41e6a7d3f6034326f30e35c324c7e02274b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lennart Poettering Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:15:49 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] catalog: add entries for the order cycle log messages Fixes: #35642 (cherry picked from commit e4003f2d9cb93d09d99b87a3d2f68cb0889ecbe8) Related: RHEL-100353 --- catalog/systemd.catalog.in | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) diff --git a/catalog/systemd.catalog.in b/catalog/systemd.catalog.in index 4c29128f71..86d7067f6f 100644 --- a/catalog/systemd.catalog.in +++ b/catalog/systemd.catalog.in @@ -539,3 +539,55 @@ Platform Configuration Register (PCR) @PCR@, on banks @BANKS@. Whenever the system transitions to a new runtime phase, a different string is extended into the specified PCR, to ensure that security policies for TPM-bound secrets and other resources are limited to specific phases of the runtime. + +-- f27a3f94406a4783b946a9bc849e9452 +Subject: Unit ordering cycle found +Defined-By: systemd +Support: %SUPPORT_URL% +Documentation: man:systemd(1) + +A unit transaction was initiated that contains an ordering cycle, i.e. some +unit that was requested to be started (either directly, or indirectly due to a +requirement dependency such as Wants= or Requires=) is ordered before some +other unit (via After=/Before=), but that latter unit is also ordered before +the former by some dependency (either directly or indirectly). + +Ordering cycles consist of at least two units, but might involve many +more. They generally indicate a bug in the unit definitions, as a unit +conceptually cannot be run both before and after some other unit, it must be +strictly ordered either before or after. + +The ordering cycle is shown in the log message. An attempt will be made to +remove unit jobs from the transaction in order to make the transaction succeed +at least partially. Note that such cycle breaking is not going to correct the +issue, it is just an attempt to make the outcome less problematic. + +The correct fix is to analyze the cycle in question and then break the cycle at +the right place by removing the right After= or Before= lines from one or more +of the involved unit files. + +-- 5084367542f7472dbc6a94125d5debce +Subject: Unit job deleted due to an ordering cycle +Defined-By: systemd +Support: %SUPPORT_URL% +Documentation: man:systemd(1) + +In order to address an ordering cycle between units that have been added to a +transaction a job has been removed from the transaction. + +The removed job is '@DELETED_TYPE@' for unit @DELETED_UNIT@. + +The removal of the job is done in order to minimize the negative effect of an +ordering cycle — it is not going to fix the underlying problem, which is a bug +in the involved unit files. The deleted job might be fundamental for the other +units in the transaction to operate, which hence might fail. + +-- b3112ddad19045538c76685ba5918a80 +Subject: Unable to break ordering cycle between units +Defined-By: systemd +Support: %SUPPORT_URL% +Documentation: man:systemd(1) + +It has been attempted to break an ordering cycle between units for which jobs +have been enqueued as part of a transaction, but this was not successful. The +transaction will fail.