Re: sv sometimes won't issue down request

[Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>]

Earl Chew <earl_chew <at> agilent.com> writes:
> This defect was submitted against the busybox/runit implementation:
> 
> https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=461
> 
> > touch /tmp/testservice/down
> > runsv /tmp/testservice &
> > sv once /tmp/testservice
> > sv down /tmp/testservice
> > 
> > The last line attempts to bring down the service, but does nothing.

Issuing 'sv term' would work though.

> Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> 
> > I propose just removing this test:
> > 
> >         if (svstatus.want == *a)
> >                 return 0;
> > 
> > 
> > it seems to be an optimization (and buggy one at that).
> 
> There is similar code in runit 2.0.0:
> 
> > int control(char *a) {
> >   if (svstatus_get() <= 0) return(-1);
> >   if (svstatus[17] == *a) return(0);
> >   if ((fd =open_write("supervise/control")) == -1) {

This patch should handle that special case ('once' followed by 'down').
If sv sees that the service is already scheduled to be down ('want
down'), but no TERM signal has been sent yet (no 'got TERM'), it sends
the 'd' command to runsv.  Does this work for you?

Regards, Gerrit.


diff --git a/src/sv.c b/src/sv.c
index 8269ca7..1a9b4b9 100644
--- a/src/sv.c
+++ b/src/sv.c
@@ -244,7 +244,8 @@ int check(char *a) {
 }
 int control(char *a) {
   if (svstatus_get() <= 0) return(-1);
-  if (svstatus[17] == *a) return(0);
+  if (svstatus[17] == *a)
+    if (*a != 'd' || svstatus[18] == 1) return(0);
   if ((fd =open_write("supervise/control")) == -1) {
     if (errno != error_nodevice)
       warn("unable to open supervise/control");