Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Bastien ROUCARIES writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]"):
>> Forking daemon are reparented to init and we do not know if exit is
>> genuine or not.
>
> Right.
>
>> It seems this problem (double fork) is the basement of using cgroup
>> under systemd ;)
>
> I think messing around with cgroups is a ridiculous way to solve this
> problem. The right answer is simply to change the daemons to give
> them an option which causes them not to fork. Then you can just have
> a single supervision daemon which reaps (and restarts, if desired).
You could not forbid cgi bin to not fork.
>
> I haven't done a survey of the available init replacements but this is
> not a new concept and I hope that most of them implement it as a
> possibility.
The main problem is they are two concepts of init:
1. immortal child reaper what should not go mad (even malloc should not fail).
2. superdaemon that track/run other daemon and run login
The two are orthogonal. The main problem of actual init (even systemd)
is that they merge the two concept.
> Ian.
>
Reply to: