On 9/24/25 13:46, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 8:27 PM Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> There are cases where a RUN+= script needs to do something
>> exactly once each time a device appears, such as binding a
>> different driver to the device.  If the udev rule matches
>> based on a property (such as PCI device information) that
>> is set only by the kernel, is it okay to use ACTION=="add"
>> in the rule?  The only other options I know of are to either
>>
> 
> Such events can still be caused by the admin doing "udevadm trigger
> --action=". Not sure why one might do that, but probably better to not rely
> on nobody doing that.

In *this* case that should never happen, as Spectrum OS's host
is basically an appliance and ideally nobody would be able to
run commands like that.

Will an ACTION=="add" event always come before any other events?

>> 1. Add additional code to the script to make sure it is
>>    idempotent.  This might require adding a lock.
>>
> 
> Maybe not necessarily a lock as I *think* udev event processing is
> serialized (for a given device at least); a flag file in /run or an xattr
> on the /dev node might be enough.

These are PCI devices with no driver.  The difficulty with a flag file
is that it needs to be reliably removed.

>> 2. Use a persistent daemon.
>>
> 
> It might be possible to have a persistent Type=oneshot .service via
> ENV{SYSTEMD_WANTS}, with RefuseManualStop. Not sure if that's a good idea.
I'm not using systemd as PID 1, so this definitely isn't an option :).

It seems that a persistent daemon is the technically correct way to
do this, but it's a lot of extra complexity.  That's unfortunate,
but it somewhat makes sense.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)