From owner-freebsd-stable  Fri Apr 19 10:57:58 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mailf.telia.com (mailf.telia.com [194.22.194.25])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAC837B405
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d1o913.telia.com (d1o913.telia.com [195.252.44.241])
	by mailf.telia.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3JHvnY04114
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:57:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h53n2fls20o913.telia.com [212.181.163.53])
	by d1o913.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA02734
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 21058 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Apr 2002 17:57:47 -0000
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:57:46 +0200
From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
To: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: inetd_enable=?
Message-ID: <20020419175746.GA21007@student.uu.se>
Mail-Followup-To: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>,
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
References: <20020419103335.G10179-100000@snafu.adept.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020419103335.G10179-100000@snafu.adept.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-stable.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 10:43:56AM -0700, Mike Hoskins wrote:
> 
> Did inetd_enable in /etc/defaults/rc.conf begin defaulting to NO instead
> of YES?  After upgrading a box remotely, and rebooting...  I was stumped
> as to why I could ping it but not SSH to the box.  Checked UPDATING, and
> changed the ephemeral port range back thinking that may be the cause...
> Then I started using my head for more than a hat rack, and noted that ps
> didn't show inetd running. (Always check the simplest things last!)  I
> usually run sshd, but this box is rarely touched in person so I'd opted
> to call it from inetd.
> 
> Is this just me, or did something change?  I didn't previously need
> inetd_enable="YES" in /etc/rc.conf, only inetd_flags...  I've looked back
> through -stable and don't see anyone else mentioning it.  That must mean
> everyone else knew and I overlooked the headsup, or I'm the only guy using
> inetd to spawn sshd.  :)

Yes, this changed a few days ago.  There was no headsup sent out that I
noticed, but most people probably have inetd_enable="YES" in
/etc/rc.conf and thus wouldn't have noticed any change.
You are probably in a fairly small minority if you start sshd from
inetd.

> 
> This is a backend box, sporting 2-way 2Ghz Xeons with 768 bit server
> key...  So I never really notice a downside to running sshd from inetd.
> My past assumption was inetd's been around longer, so is less likely to
> crash or die than sshd.  Granted, that assumption becomes less useful by
> the day.

From a reliability point of view I don't think there is any noticable
difference between the two.  (I have never seen either of them crash.)


-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message