Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:32:57 +0000 From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> To: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: syslogd(8) with OOM Killer protection Message-ID: <56AE2929.304@NTLWorld.com> In-Reply-To: <56AA047D.8070807@digiware.nl> References: <56AA047D.8070807@digiware.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eugene Grosbein: > protection of single process is meaningless because it forks to become daemon and that ceases protection; This premise is erroneous, and the conclusion that you've based upon it is erroneous too. Daemons that run under service managers do not need to fork "to become [a] daemon". Indeed, they *already are* daemons right from the start. As Jan Brankamp said elsewhere: > I would prefer to implement the a flag keeping cron (and all other base system daemons) from double-forking and run it under a process supervisor like daemontools. And as I have pointed out, this is already the case over a wide range of daemon softwares nowadays. Thus the use of "protect" is feasible, since proper service-manager-managed daemons end up as the same process as the process that ran "protect". Indeed, chain-loading utilities like "protect" are the basics of the daemontools way of doing things. There is a broad range of tools whose purpose is to affect process state in one particular aspect and then chain to another program using what's left in the argument vector. Eugene Grosbein: > Perhaps, we could have kernel facility [...] There's no need for new kernel facilities here if one uses a service manager and throws away the wrongheaded idea that daemons need to *become* daemons under their own steam. (-:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56AE2929.304>