From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/599 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: supervising postfix Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097953906 11753 80.91.229.6 (16 Oct 2004 19:11:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:11:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "" Original-X-From: supervision-return-838-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Sat Oct 16 21:11:33 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14] ident=qmailr) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CItxl-0004eI-00 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:11:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 4358 invoked by uid 76); 16 Oct 2004 19:11:54 -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 4352 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2004 19:11:54 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com Original-To: Vincent Danen In-Reply-To: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:599 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:599 On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Vincent Danen wrote: > In Annvix, we ship both exim and postfix (exim being preferred... it > runs awesome supervised). The same can't be said of postfix, however. You can't expect any help from Postfix's author: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2001-08/1455.html Postfix must be started with the postfix-script shell script that is provided with the Postfix source code. Other startup procedures are not supported. In other words, if you start Postfix in a different manner, then you've broken the Postfix warranty. You do so at your own risk, and I don't care why it breaks. [In case you are not aware, there is a long running feud between DJB and Wietse Venema.] > $daemon_directory/master 2>&1 > > > I can't use exec for master because if I do I get this written to my > mail.log: > > Oct 9 14:31:46 test postfix/master[1941]: fatal: unable to set session > and process group ID: Operation not permitted Wietse goes on to say: That said, the problem described below could be evidence of a bug in the implementation of the setsid() system call. The Postfix master "super-server" calls setsid(). setsid() makes the Postfix master the leader of a new process group. Any signals sent by Postfix to the default process group are limited to processes within that new process group. If such a signal kills the master's parent process, then then the kernel's implementation of setsid() is broken and needs to be fixed. Which is all very easy to say. Perhaps he made that statement before checking the return value of setsid(), as postfix now appears to do. "man 2 setsid" should help you: ERRORS On error, -1 will be returned. The only error which can happen is EPERM. It is returned when the process group ID of any process equals the PID of the calling process. Thus, in particular, setsid fails if the calling process is already a process group leader. I don't see the logic in postfix interpreting this as a fatal error. Postfix wanted to be the process group leader. It already was. Where's the fatal problem? > However, for some odd reason if I manually run the run script (ie. sh > -x ./run) the master process starts and starts the children properly, > etc. That'd be right, since your shell is not a process group leader. > I'm really stumped on this one... You'll either need to ensure that the run script is not a process group leader (remove -P from runsvdir, and possibly add "chpst -P" to most other run scripts), or fix postfix to turn the fatal error into a warning. They're my guesses, anyway. Like you, I choose not to run postfix, so I don't have first-hand experience with it and its foibles. > Anyone have any ideas they could toss to me? I'm about ready for any > bones here and willing to try anything. If I had hair I'd be ripping > it out. :-) --- Charlie