Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:40:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r332773 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <201804191540.w3JFesdQ066488@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaFJ_C9uqM4O9KyBbjPRRq%2Bsk9%2B-DfDBeTo1TG8-Sh=kKg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Rodney W. Grimes > >>> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >>> >> Author: kevans > >>> >> Date: Thu Apr 19 15:02:53 2018 > >>> >> New Revision: 332773 > >>> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/332773 > >>> >> > >>> >> Log: > >>> >> Fix ddb rc script > >>> >> > >>> >> r288291 added a call to limits(1), which isn't available before > >>> >> partitions > >>> >> are mounted. This broke the ddb rc script, which does not provide its > >>> >> own > >>> >> start_cmd. > >>> >> > >>> >> Alleviate the situation here by providing a start_cmd. We still have > >>> >> other > >>> >> problems with diskless setups that need to be considered, but this is > >>> >> a > >>> >> start. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Also didn't cy identify a second one of these? > >>> > Or am I confusing yet another issue? > >>> > > >>> > >>> He identified a second early script that didn't specify start_cmd, but > >>> it was a non-issue because it's invoked independently of rc.subr. > >> > >> > >> One would think that it shouldn't invoke limits at all if foo_limits= wasn't > >> specified... Would make the feature much less invasive. I agree. This should be implemented, if it isn't already working that way. > >> > > > > foo_limits was introduced long after the initial invocation, which was > > introduced to enforce consistent limits of daemons run from rc.subr. > > Not doing this due to the lack of foo_flags would certainly kill the > > original intent, I'm afraid. > > I do wonder if some kind of kenv var or something would be appropriate > to disable this whole mess for some setups that it just clearly won't > work in, but maybe that's a terrible thought. I think you miss understood Warner. He is saying that if there is no rc var *_limits there should be no invocation of limits(1) at all, making much of this whole mess for many of us a NOP. I actually believe that is how the code already works, but not sure. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201804191540.w3JFesdQ066488>