From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1057 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Daniel_Cegie=B3ka?= Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Vision for new platform Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:17:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20120518010620.GW163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120609192756.6e72f25e@sibserver.ru> <20120609074426.496a5e13@newbook> <20120609212411.GA163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87lijwnmao.fsf@gmail.com> <20120610132246.GF163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120610225226.137363d0@sibserver.ru> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339341506 19770 80.91.229.3 (10 Jun 2012 15:18:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:18:26 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1058-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Jun 10 17:18:26 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SdjuG-0007aQ-7D for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:18:20 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1983 invoked by uid 550); 10 Jun 2012 15:18:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 1972 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2012 15:18:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=7o2RM0uwG5doUyqEmmHyQbflt2MVq7IJGO36ZZQ31Vo=; b=RRJZI0P1/stqh0zBWL+GHhnOxsRxww3fC2rTnn9WFykOedIofpOz0IKUfOSCpXegP9 5Pa7s7sJ30pweh51ZeYhGDmPUEbf3fjBinRy0cpp7Uee0WU33tNZ2eqYIxRQ/EXZ0WI9 quAEdd9L94CZ8rwyT0m+zWKl2Zap5GGuA8Pb4rYgE1VyTYe53SL4fKUf8cjDcIdB7csn V7APm+TEqk4tCokdiTTf/DRVNbhDl89C+nurDrh6/h88QzGmXylT8j4JFpotsf1FzjXz Q+MT/hXNKELrfdYMVozdAHTpHGzfpwRtmWPnWYRI6CDno9efhZGP7reKuHG0LNwc6m6n mpIw== In-Reply-To: <20120610225226.137363d0@sibserver.ru> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1057 Archived-At: 2012/6/10 orc : > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:22:46 -0400 > Rich Felker wrote: > >> You can manage the lifetimes for forking daemons in non-generic ways >> (like interfacing with them through a socket), but to make a robust >> system, every daemon you use must have a "do not fork" option. >> Thankfully, I think all of the mainstream ones already do, and if not, >> it's not something hard to patch in. As far as I know, systemd is >> pushing the same thing, so at least it's not an uphill battle to get >> this fixed in real-world software that's broken. > > If we need no starting and stopping, than this can be already > implemented in init scripts. Only a simple program-wrapper that > forcibly daemonizes that daemons with "do not fork" option needed. > Optionally it can report a pid after fork() before execvp(). > > I just think that init subsystem must be as simple as possible, > without additional machinery like automatic starting and stopping and > watching for daemons status (but optionally it can be developed, of > course, there is no limits at all). If daemon segfaults for example, > than this is a daemon's failure that *must* be fixed in daemon, not in > init subsystem. Daemon restarts can result in data loss. > Otherwise you can't trust the daemon that is running from init scripts. > (I'm a bit paranoid here) I think a lot depends on how we want to use our system. If its user desktop, a solution such as systemd are very comfortable. If we want to have a 'critical' system (RTOS/security) then it's better to keep independent init as simple process. Orc, I agree with your opinion... Daniel