On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > This is bogus, anything can die in an OOM situation. Are you going to
> > put all daemons into inittab?
> True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
> some special treatment IMHO.
> Actually, I am ponderi
Thanks a lot folks,
you provided good arguments with these two bug reports. I've
considered the issue on my own as well and came to a different
implementation.
Instead of making syslogd/klogd controlled by init they will now be
restarted by regular cron scripts if they got lost in the meantime.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:13:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > I want the LOGGING daemons (i.e. only syslog and klogd), which ALREADY run
> > as root, to be restarted should they die. Due to OOM killer, due to
> > segfaults. Whatever.
>
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:02:39PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Such a table should not (and needs not) to benefit processes running by
> > someone else than root, unless you wanted to do such a thing on purpose and
> > coded it like that
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:03, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:47:27PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Nowhere does it use the process name to lessen the chances of killing a
> > > process. IMHO it would be a nice idea to h
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:03, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:47:27PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Nowhere does it use the process name to lessen the chances of killing a
> > process. IMHO it would be a nice idea to have such a whitelist just in
> > case.
>
> Extreme
(not cc'ed to the bts)
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Processes
> >> like syslogd is meant to be the last ones to be killed.
> > I am not at ease to go poking on the
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Processes
>> like syslogd is meant to be the last ones to be killed.
> I am not at ease to go poking on the OOM, though. Someone else better used
> to kernel programming shou
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:09:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > It is far better than anything else I can think of. Fiddling with the OOM
> > killer to avoid killing syslog and klog is worse, for example. Writing
>
> Nope, that's exactly wh
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:09:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> It is far better than anything else I can think of. Fiddling with the OOM
> killer to avoid killing syslog and klog is worse, for example. Writing
Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Process
also sprach Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.12.29.2035 +0100]:
> IMHO the right solution is to slowly replace sysvinit's init.d
> with something that can monitor whether the children are still
> alive. For _everything_.
ntpdate??? for instance...
surely not everything,
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > The package installation scripts should offer to run klogd from
> > inittab, since klogd regularly dies in OOM situations and is not
> > restarted if the current mechanism is used.
IMHO the right solution is to slowly
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
> > some special treatment IMHO.
>
> Even so, starting it from inittab is too much of a kludge. For one thing,
It is far b
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:40:41AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > You should be trying to avoid OOM situations in the first place.
>
> That is not always possible, and sometimes a kernel VM screwup will cause
> it, no?
Hmm.. OOM Killer should avoid killing long running root daemons
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
> some special treatment IMHO.
Even so, starting it from inittab is too much of a kludge. For one thing,
it means that /etc/init.d/syslogd stop will either not work,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This is bogus, anything can die in an OOM situation. Are you going to
> put all daemons into inittab?
True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
some special treatment IMHO.
Actually, I am pondering doing such a thing to ssh
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Package: klogd
>> Version: 1.4.1-8
>> Severity: wishlist
>> Tags: security
>>
>> The package installation scripts should offer to run klogd from
>> inittab, since klogd regularly dies in OOM situations and is not
>> restarted if the current mechanism is used.
This is bo
What do people think?
Please copy mails that you consider important in this context to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] so they get recorded
properly.
Regards,
Joey
Florian Weimer wrote:
> Package: klogd
> Version: 1.4.1-8
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: security
>
> The package i
18 matches
Mail list logo
