Re: runit SIGPWR support

[Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com>]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:38:38 +0100
Jeff <sysinit@yandex.com> wrote:

> 12.02.2020, 22:54, "Colin Booth" <colin@heliocat.net>:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:56PM +0300, innerspacepilot wrote:  
> >>  Why not just make runit systems run inside containers out of the
> >> box? We are talking about one/two lines of code.  
> 
> you should patch the code, runit is dead anyway.

Oh really. No chance that Gerrit has simply taken a year or two off?
Why are you using software you consider dead? Why not move to s6 if
runit is dead?

> try something along this lines in the source:
> 
> #ifdef SIGPWR
>   /* handle that one */
>   ...
> #endif

If it's that simple, why don't YOU do it? Someone already mentioned
that BSD doesn't have this signal, so incorporating it in the wider
project could be objected to by some people as non-portable. So why
don't YOU make this change on YOUR copy?

> 
> i can't see the problem, you have to patch the runit sources to
> fulfil your requirements since that project is dead and the code
> is not maintained anymore.
> 
> >>  Why can't we be just a little bit more friendly to each other?  
> 
> that would be indeed helpful.

And you can start by not calling a project "dead".

> 
> > I wasn't trying to be hostile, apologies if it came across that
> > way. As far as I know SIGPWR is a Linux-specific signal so services
> > that are aiming for portability will either need to have special
> > handling for that in the linux case or need to ignore it. Ergo,
> > runit (and all other POSIX-compliant inits) currently have no
> > special handling around SIGPWR as they don't understand what it is.
> >
> > Is this the right behavior? I don't know. Something like SIGPWR as
> > an alerting mechanism when you're switched to UPS battery is pretty
> > nice in a general case but using that as your container shutdown
> > solution isolates you into a very SysV-specific world. Overriding
> > the default via lxc.signal.halt will allow you to modify what you
> > send to something that is within the POSIX spec and allow you to
> > trigger shutdowns the "right" way. It's a little lame but it is
> > portable, and LXC using a non-portable signal is a little bit of a
> > bummer.  
> 
> just BS. adding a bit of handler code for SIGPWR is no big deal,
> please stop your lamento, it's so boring.

I guess your resolution to be a little bit more friendly to each other
didn't last too long.

You're one guy who wants this change. You have many alternatives:

* s6
* lxc.signal.halt
* Patch runit yourself

Everyone else: Just to express my opinion: I use runit every day and
personally have no need to have it react to SIGPWR.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
February 2020 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times
http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive