Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:09:46 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org> Cc: Niclas Zeising <zeising+freebsd@daemonic.se>, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-stable-11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r331880 - stable/11/etc Message-ID: <CACNAnaH=9bXidEQ3Xk_tOL1txpqQiX_j1w0cjhetSMvErTrkwQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201804091552.w39Fqv2S019416@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <CACNAnaHCiCJMq_ePzsgJ9=S=rERqwm-Vm2Fyf9EOPVwNonS4dg@mail.gmail.com> <201804091552.w39Fqv2S019416@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Rodney W. Grimes >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rodney W. Grimes >> >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Rodney W. Grimes >> >> >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 04/02/18 17:39, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Author: kevans >> >> >> >> >> Date: Mon Apr 2 15:28:48 2018 >> >> >> >> >> New Revision: 331880 >> >> >> >> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/331880 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Log: >> >> >> >> >> MFC r328331: Support configuring arbitrary limits(1) for any rc.conf daemon >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Usage is ${name}_limits, and the argument is any flags accepted by >> >> >> >> >> limits(1), such as `-n 100' (e.g. only allow 100 open files). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Modified: >> >> >> >> >> stable/11/etc/rc.subr >> >> >> >> >> Directory Properties: >> >> >> >> >> stable/11/ (props changed) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Modified: stable/11/etc/rc.subr >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================================== >> >> >> >> >> --- stable/11/etc/rc.subr Mon Apr 2 15:07:41 2018 (r331879) >> >> >> >> >> +++ stable/11/etc/rc.subr Mon Apr 2 15:28:48 2018 (r331880) >> >> >> >> >> @@ -773,6 +773,8 @@ check_startmsgs() >> >> >> >> >> # >> >> >> >> >> # ${name}_login_class n Login class to use, else "daemon". >> >> >> >> >> # >> >> >> >> >> +# ${name}_limits n limits(1) to apply to ${command}. >> >> >> >> >> +# >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Caution, limits(1) is in /usr/bin, this code can fail if used before >> >> >> >> > /usr is mounted. (Ie, our rc.initdiskless) is probably broken by >> >> >> >> > this change if a call is made to limits. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry for jumping on this so late. This is also an issue in CURRENT, >> >> >> >> and has been since at least 2016. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I was aware that it was an issue and why I made a comment about it >> >> >> > being MFC'ed. Though I had forgot a bug report existed. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm kind of surprised we haven't had more complaints about this- the >> >> >> original commit for this stuff landed before stable/11 was even >> >> >> branched, so it's been broken for all of 11.x's lifetime. >> >> > >> >> > History has taught me it takes a long time for this type of >> >> > breakage to usually surface in a noticable way. Also I think >> >> > until you merged this last ${name}_limits thing it actually >> >> > didn't cause an issue, except for the few like me running >> >> > diskless systems and or seperate /usr. >> >> >> >> I don't see how this merge could possibly have been the cause of any >> >> claimed issues- like I said before, it didn't add any limits >> >> invocations, it added an arg to the limits invocation that already >> >> existed. You can see this pretty clearly from the diff, we didn't even >> >> change any conditions for limits to be invoked. >> > >> > limits_mysql="NO" is defined by the startup script for mysql, >> > that now causes /etc/rc to try and use that variable in a >> > different way. >> > >> > You added a variable, one that was already in use by some other >> > /etc/rc* related component. Collision of differening uses is >> > causing errors. >> > >> >> Ah, apologies, I misread your previous e-mail and had interpreted it >> as you claiming again that this broke things for those of you "running >> diskless systems and or seperate /usr." -- this other breakage, these >> are things we can fix and aren't really large hurdles to climb over. > > Mostly true, other than the hurdle of that 0mp mentions in his > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227205 > We need to remember that we cannot simply switch to > the new mechanism as it is only available in 12-CURRENT > and soon in 11-STABLE (and 11.2). > > I am not sure how to handle that with the users, it is a operational > interface change in how limits are done for these ports and probably > is going to break a lot of peoples systems if they try to update > from 11.1 to 11.2 because there /etc/rc.conf file is full of old > stuff that this new stuff is incompatible with. > > IMHO, it would be best to post pone this change to 12, as people > are more willing to suffer painful upgrades when going between > major versions. > Right- so, back out this MFC (and the subsequent FreeBSD_version bump) and fix the ports to do the right thing for 12.x while that's still not a technically supported branch? >> >> We just need people like 0mp that are actually inclined to address it >> in ports, and we need to actually communicate changes like this with >> ports people and assess what's going to break and make a plan to get >> it fixed. > > Problem was/is no one had the foresight to see the ports breakage > coming and avoid it in some way. That happens, its engineering, > lets find a fix and move on. > >> IMO this in particular wasn't a major change, and it shouldn't have >> been too big of a deal (unlike the commit that it built upon). I don't >> think it should've been broken in head for two months in the various >> ports that 0mp has identified- even if people don't run these >> databases on head, we should've assessed the fallout and fixed it >> somewhere in the two month's time. We're not talking half the ports >> tree, we're talking < 30 ports. =( > > Its usually the tiny, minor, itty bit little nit change that bites > the hardest :-) >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaH=9bXidEQ3Xk_tOL1txpqQiX_j1w0cjhetSMvErTrkwQ>