Ubuntu 16.04's irritatingly broken MySQL updates

July 22, 2016

I tweeted:

So, Ubuntu 16.04 can't apply MySQL server updates if you have the server installed but have disabled it running. Good show, you lot.

We install the MySQL server package on a few machines but deliberately don't start the daemon. In older versions of Ubuntu, this worked reasonably well; you could do it, you could keep the daemon from starting on boot, and you could apply updates (although doing so generally started the daemon up, so you had to remember to then go stop it). In 16.04, if you've disabled the daemon your attempts to apply updates will error out:

mysql_upgrade: Got error: 2002: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' (2) while connecting to the MySQL server
Upgrade process encountered error and will not continue.
mysql_upgrade failed with exit status 11

The direct cause of this problem is that the mysql-server-5.7 postinstall script needs to run mysql_upgrade, which requires the server to be running. Perhaps at this point you sigh, run 'service mysql start', and try the upgrade again. It'll still fail, because the postinstall script is more complicate and more wrong than that.

The postinstall script needs to stop the MySQL daemon, do some things, and then start the daemon again and run mysql_upgrade (and then restart the daemon yet again). It does all of this starting and restarting by running invoke-rc.d, and invoke-rc.d specifically refuses to start disabled daemons. In the grand Unix tradition, this behavior is burried in an innocuous phrasing in the invoke-rc.d manpage:

invoke-rc.d is a generic interface to execute System V style init script /etc/init.d/name actions, obeying runlevel constraints as well as any local policies set by the system administrator.

Via a complex chain of actions, what 'obeying runlevel constraints' translates to here is that if you do 'systemctl disable <whatever>', invoke-rc.d will decided that <whatever> is specifically blocked from running and not start it.

(Invoke-rc.d in general is the wrong tool in Ubuntu 16.04, because it's actually fairly tied to the System V init framework. The system goes through ugly hacks in order to make it work 'right' on things that are actually native systemd .service units, as the MySQL daemon is.)

This selectivity is the wrong approach, or at least it's in the wrong place. What the postinst script should really be doing is unconditionally shutting down the server, unconditionally starting it to run mysql_upgrade, unconditionally shutting it down again, and only then using invoke-rc.d to conditionally start it again. This would achieve the twin goals of upgrading MySQL while not leaving the daemon running if it's disabled. This would actually be an improvement over the 14.04 situation, instead of a massive headache.

(Of course I expect that the real answer is simply that no one thought about this possibility, and that if we were to file a bug report we'd be told that disabling the daemon is not a supported configuration.)

The workaround is simple. Before you try to apply a MySQL server pack update, do 'systemctl enable mysql'. After it's done, do 'systemctl disable mysql; systemctl stop mysql' to return to the original state.

Sidebar: 'Runlevel constraints' and invoke-rc.d

Invoke-rc.d checks to see whether something is enabled or disabled by looking for S* and K* symlinks in /etc/rc<runlevel>.d. In 16.04, the 'runlevel' is arbitrary and is reported as '5', so we're looking at /etc/rc5.d. When you do 'systemctl disable' or 'systemctl enable' on an Ubuntu 16.04 system and the service also has an /etc/init.d file, systemctl helpfully maintains rcN.d S* and K* symlinks for you. So running 'systemctl disable mysql' also creates a /etc/rc5.d/K02mysql, which invoke-rc.d will then see as saying that mysql is specifically constrained to not start in runlevel 5, and so should not be started.

(If there was no /etc/rc5.d symlink at all, invoke-rc.d would also conclude that it shouldn't start the MySQL daemon.)


Comments on this page:

By George at 2016-07-22 08:21:32:

Did you file a bug? No one would fix this until know about it.

By Twirrim at 2016-07-23 18:57:58:

Filing a bug would be good, but Canonical/Ubuntu has trained me not to, intentionally or otherwise.

Bugs filed sit around for a long time before triage, by the time there is any response I've usually engineered around the problem or given up. These days unless it's an absolutely critical blocker, it just doesn't seem worth filing.

Written on 22 July 2016.
« My current set of essential extensions for Firefox profiles
My current set of Chrome extensions (as of July 2016) »

Page tools: View Source, View Normal, Add Comment.
Search:
Login: Password:
Atom Syndication: Recent Comments.

Last modified: Fri Jul 22 02:20:33 2016
This dinky wiki is brought to you by the Insane Hackers Guild, Python sub-branch.