From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/568 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gerrit Pape Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runsv and process groups Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:39:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20040829093924.23553.qmail@691f36bc3ec803.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> References: <6575lv98.fsf@ID-23066.news.dfncis.de> <20040826204817.1893.qmail@a4750aef5ce996.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1093772356 13795 80.91.224.253 (29 Aug 2004 09:39:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-806-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Sun Aug 29 11:39:09 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C1M9V-0007qL-00 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:39:09 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 21279 invoked by uid 76); 29 Aug 2004 09:39:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 21274 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2004 09:39:25 -0000 Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:568 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:568 On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:57:54PM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote: > Gerrit Pape wrote: > > Once setsid() is called there's no way back. > But there is after setpgid(). Hm, I'm not yet sure about all the implications when changing the default behavior. > > Hm, I'm not sure yet. What do you think about runsvdir running runsv in > > a new process group, and not runsv the run script? > > It depends what kinds of arrangements you want to make possible. Primarily I want to address Charlie's concern. It's true that a buggy program that kills the process group it didn't create kills the stage 2 runsvdir process, and so causes runit to enter stage 3. But I think it's also true that this may be used as a feature as Clement noted; the runsv and runsvdir programs also can be used independently, and in user space. And I don't want to make major changes to the default behavior of the runit programs in versions 1.0.x. Having runsvdir create a process group for each runsv process could be done through a command line option and switched on optionally, it's not that easy with runsv. This doesn't solve Dan's trouble with the getty service though, some getties would still need to be run with chpst -P; this should be documented. Thanks for your input, Gerrit.