[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: A few observations about systemd"):
>> ]] Russell Coker
>> | But it does result in a system that doesn't work properly.
>> Well, yes.  If init crashes, stuff generally don't work that well
>> afterwards. :-)
> That's why its best to have init contain as little code as possible,
> to minimise the chance that bugs cause init to crash.  Which was
> Bastien Roucaries's point, I think.

Exactly and udev, socket stuff and lot of stuff made more likely to
get this. pid == 1 should do only child rip, and respawn a systemd
process if it crash. And start a crash shell  if needed. Not rocket
science about ipc only a loop and two signal to catch:
- get SIGING: respawn systemd
- get SIGUSR2: spawn a sulogin shell
- check if systemd child die, respawn it if needed (rate limited)

All the funky stuff is done by a child of init. Remeber the contract
of init made by the kernel. In all the case you should reap children.
If they are some delay they are potential of dos.


> Ian.
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 20005.32880.591127.827897@chiark.greenend.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20005.32880.591127.827897@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Reply to: