From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/567 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runsv and process groups Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <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 1093568841 4638 80.91.224.253 (27 Aug 2004 01:07:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-805-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Fri Aug 27 03:07:14 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 1C0VCz-0005oT-00 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 03:07:13 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 6802 invoked by uid 76); 27 Aug 2004 01:07:34 -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 6797 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2004 01:07:33 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org In-Reply-To: <20040826204817.1893.qmail@a4750aef5ce996.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:567 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:567 On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:05:13PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2004, Clemens Fischer wrote: > > > > it be easier for (nearly) everyone if runsv did it? > > > for me this is about choice, > > I don't see how your freedom would be curtailed if runsv's behaviour was a > > little different. > Once setsid() is called there's no way back. Sure, but if the process is still running root, it can send a signal to its parent's process group. > > I'm still curious about Gerrit's opinion. Is there a good reason why runsv > > doesn't put each run script in a new process group? [Other than the > > obvious reason that that would be different behavior to daemontools]. > > 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? That'd satisfy my concern, which is that a buggy run script or daemon can easily take down the whole system. That's certainly not the resiliency which people are looking for when they use supervise/runit. Or at least, which I'm looking for. I have more than an academic interest in this issue, since I've been bitten by it in the past. --- Charlie