Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 5 Jun 2017 08:53:50 -0700
From:      "Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)" <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
To:        Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: old syslog (jail) and new kernel = 100% CPU
Message-ID:  <55114361-9212-49AE-A3FF-7691CADB2367@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b0be1be3-4aa7-a768-6102-3c776f0537f6@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20170604140924.Horde.oGvD2didLbdx2PCsGHE3gDi@webmail.leidinger.net> <d1c67389-6176-4201-b1ff-2d48f79b83c4@shatow.net> <20170605113412.Horde.RZna3Dra3jMHzoVyzHFOKJR@webmail.leidinger.net> <b0be1be3-4aa7-a768-6102-3c776f0537f6@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--Apple-Mail=_C4C13FEC-47ED-445C-8D76-DDD66E658431
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:20, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>=20
> On 6/5/2017 2:34 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>=20
>> Quoting Bryan Drewery <bryan@shatow.net> (from Sun, 4 Jun 2017 =
14:38:07
>> -0700):
>>=20
>>> On 6/4/17 5:09 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>=20
>>>> new kernel (surely r318877 and later) and old syslog in a jail =3D =
NOK.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> What branch and revision is the syslogd? =46rom my understanding the =
bug
>>> exists in a head version of syslogd only, maybe MFC'd to stable/11, =
but
>>> not released.  If it was MFC'd we need to fix it before the 11.1 =
release.
>>=20
>> This was a syslogd from head for sure.
>>=20
>> So the issue was that for an intermediate period of time a bug was in
>> syslogd in head which was causing this, and if I would have upgraded =
a
>> system were the jail would have been head from before the or after =
the
>> bug, then I wouldn't have noticed it?
>>=20
>=20
> Yes, that's my understanding.  So it's ultimately a non-issue for
> releases since it is just a temporary issue on head.

Yes. syslogd was refactored on ^/head. Some of the refactoring caused =
the issue Alexander brought up. The changes were never backported =
though, so the concern you had in the previous message isn=E2=80=99t =
something to be worried about, since the code hasn=E2=80=99t seen the =
changes the ^/head copy has.
Cheers!
-Ngie

--Apple-Mail=_C4C13FEC-47ED-445C-8D76-DDD66E658431
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=JrUQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_C4C13FEC-47ED-445C-8D76-DDD66E658431--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55114361-9212-49AE-A3FF-7691CADB2367>