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

Bug#809035: ssh.service notification warning in syslog



Control: tags -1 + patch

Am 26.12.2015 um 17:27 schrieb Colin Watson:
> Michael, this looks like a regression from your readiness notification
> changes that I applied recently.  Please could you have a look?

Attached is a patch on top of the existing one, which fixes the issue by
running the sd_notify() call only in the main process and not the
spawned off children.
It moves it right next to the existing SIGSTOP readiness-signal.

Regards,
Michael


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
From 60aab01587f4974261882b7c4066750f34522ea4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 15:58:03 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Call sd_notify() only for the main process

Move the sd_notify() call next to the existing SIGSTOP readiness
notification so it is only run in the main process and not for the
spawned off children.

Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809035
---
 sshd.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sshd.c b/sshd.c
index 4d28dc0..19ee92b 100644
--- a/sshd.c
+++ b/sshd.c
@@ -2015,11 +2015,6 @@ main(int ac, char **av)
 	/* ignore SIGPIPE */
 	signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
 
-#ifdef HAVE_SYSTEMD
-	/* Signal systemd that we are ready to accept connections */
-	sd_notify(0, "READY=1");
-#endif
-
 	/* Get a connection, either from inetd or a listening TCP socket */
 	if (inetd_flag) {
 		server_accept_inetd(&sock_in, &sock_out);
@@ -2061,6 +2056,11 @@ main(int ac, char **av)
 			unsetenv("SSH_SIGSTOP");
 		}
 
+#ifdef HAVE_SYSTEMD
+		/* Signal systemd that we are ready to accept connections */
+		sd_notify(0, "READY=1");
+#endif
+
 		/* Accept a connection and return in a forked child */
 		server_accept_loop(&sock_in, &sock_out,
 		    &newsock, config_s);
-- 
2.6.4

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: