Re: Bug#244908: is it OK for invoke-rc.d stop not to stop?
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
>
> To me this looks far fetched, and IMHO it is an operator error.
>
> Please enlighten me if I understood your point incorrectly, or if I missed
> something above.
What I'm saying is that if someone is worried that --pidfile may kill
the wrong thing, then they'll probably be worried about --pidfile
--name killing the wrong thing as well.
>> Depending on what daemon this is, the user may well have a legitimate
>> reason for running a private copy.
>
> Indeed. That would require editing the initscript for things to work
> correctly, wouldn't it? IMHO not doing so is an operator error. At the
Not necessarily. The user may be running a privately built server.
> very least, any private daemons should not be using the same pidfile as
> another instance of the daemon (in fact, any non-broken daemon will refuse
> to work if you use the same pidfile and you want to have two instances
> running).
It's not using the same pidfile. This can happen when the pids roll over.
I'm just arguing that the --name test is useless in this case as a
replacement for --exec.
> It is much better than --exec, which does not deliver the required
> functionality.
--exec does deliver what's required if you use it properly.
> As for control sockets, they have exactly the same problem as --pidfile
> --name if a "private copy" of the daemon is started without it being
> properly configured to use another socket location than the default.
This is highly unlikely unless you're putting your sockets in a
world-writable directory.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: