Russ Allbery <ea...@eyrie.org> writes:
> Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> writes:
>
>> I suspect that we would be a little friendlier to systemd if we
>> passed -n to krb5kdc and adjusted the unit file accordingly. There
>> would still be a race window between when systemd thinks krb5kdc is
>> started and ready to accept connections and when that is actually the
>> case, but in both cases that window is small, and we cannot eliminate
>> it entirely without patching the code to call systemd-specific
>> functions.
>
> For what it's worth, that's a pretty light burden. It's just the
> following Autoconf probe:
>
> PKG_CHECK_EXISTS([libsystemd],
> [PKG_CHECK_MODULES([SYSTEMD], [libsystemd])
> AC_DEFINE([HAVE_SD_NOTIFY], 1, [Define if sd_notify is available.])])
>
> (does require the pkg-config Autoconf stuff as well), the following at
> the start of the daemon C file:
>
> #ifdef HAVE_SD_NOTIFY
> # include <systemd/sd-daemon.h>
> #else
> # define sd_notify(u, s) 0
> #endif
>
> and then just the following call when the daemon has started up and is
> ready for connections:
>
> sd_notify(true, "READY=1");
>
> or, to be more complete, something akin to:
>
> status = sd_notify(true, "READY=1");
> if (status < 0)
> warn("cannot notify systemd of startup: %s", strerror(-status));
>
> Then you can be a native systemd daemon and systemd will know exactly
> when the KDC is ready to respond to connections, which will resolve
> various race conditions when some other system service depends on the
> KDC for startup.Won't this produce something that requires systemd if systemd was present during build, thereby preventing a maintainer from shipping both a sysvinit script and a systemd unit file? Or am I misunderstanding? Thanks, --Robbie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
