Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Brett Lymn
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:43:40PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > > And I think you're right: the info will go in a 0400 file in /tmp, and > will be a way to obtain various running infos---but for now, just the > running config (it could perhaps be extended, but not now, to add > stats, what

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:57:00PM +1000, Luke Mewburn a écrit : > This isn't a NetBSD convention per se, although I could write up in > more detail the conventions we do use and pass them around separately > for consideration/refinement for NetBSD services/daemons. Yes, please. It would be worth

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Mouse
So I added a new file descriptor type (well, semi-new; they're DTYPE_MISC) and a new syscall (pidconn) [...] >>> In this area (as others, in fact), the Plan9 solution is >>> [/proc/$PID/ctl] >> That is unidirectional communication. pidconn is bidirectional. >> Aside from that, how does t

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:16:52AM -0400, Mouse a écrit : > > The inclusion directive is a dot i.e. a here script: > > Well, as I think someone else pointed out, I wokuldn't call that a here > script. sh spells it ".", csh spells it "source", but here script is > more often used for "<<" style in

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:50:03AM -0400, Mouse a écrit : > >> So I added a new file descriptor type (well, semi-new; they're > >> DTYPE_MISC) and a new syscall (pidconn) [...] > > > In this area (as others, in fact), the Plan9 solution is quite > > elegant (and consistent with the whole design):

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:57:00PM +1000, Luke Mewburn a écrit : > On 23-05-31 13:12, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > | > Also, on 23-05-30 21:03, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > | > | (When checking, so even with -C, nothing is written via > | > | syslog since, then, inetd is not a daemon bu

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Mouse
> The inclusion directive is a dot i.e. a here script: Well, as I think someone else pointed out, I wokuldn't call that a here script. sh spells it ".", csh spells it "source", but here script is more often used for "<<" style input, input that's inline, which an included file by definition is no

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Mouse
>> So I think when using inetd in check mode, it is an utility and the >> config will go to stdout, and the errors about the parsing to stderr >> [...] > IMHO, if check + -f foreground; errors to stdout/stderr, > and if check + (background default); output to syslog. I see no particular use for d

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Luke Mewburn
On 23-05-31 13:12, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: | > Also, on 23-05-30 21:03, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: | > | (When checking, so even with -C, nothing is written via | > | syslog since, then, inetd is not a daemon but just an utility---a syntax | > | checker---printing messages on st

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Luke Mewburn
On 23-05-31 12:43, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: | And I think you're right: the info will go in a 0400 file in /tmp, and | will be a way to obtain various running infos---but for now, just the | running config (it could perhaps be extended, but not now, to add | stats, what is masked by a se

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Mouse
>> So I added a new file descriptor type (well, semi-new; they're >> DTYPE_MISC) and a new syscall (pidconn) [...] > In this area (as others, in fact), the Plan9 solution is quite > elegant (and consistent with the whole design): in the /proc/ > directory, the process has its directory /proc/$pid/

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:12:12PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com a écrit : > > But inetd used in check mode is probably to try to validate a candidate > config in the current process to be written. My english is definitively not very good: inetd in check mode is probably used to try a config that i

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:42:11PM +1000, Luke Mewburn a écrit : > On 23-05-31 03:54, Robert Elz wrote: > | Date:Tue, 30 May 2023 21:03:21 +0200 > | From:tlaro...@polynum.com > | Message-ID: > | > | | Do you think that SIGINFO is sound as the signal to obt

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:34:55PM -0400, Mouse a écrit : > > But that's independent of the signal used to make it happen, [...] > > > Personally I'd probably pick a different signal for that, but I am > > not sure which. > > I have long felt that having only two uncommitted signals (SIGUSR1 and

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread tlaronde
Le Wed, May 31, 2023 at 03:54:12AM +0700, Robert Elz a écrit : > Date:Tue, 30 May 2023 21:03:21 +0200 > From:tlaro...@polynum.com > Message-ID: > > | Do you think that SIGINFO is sound as the signal to obtain a config DUMP > in > | the syslog? > > First, dumping

Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

2023-05-31 Thread Luke Mewburn
On 23-05-31 03:54, Robert Elz wrote: | Date:Tue, 30 May 2023 21:03:21 +0200 | From:tlaro...@polynum.com | Message-ID: | | | Do you think that SIGINFO is sound as the signal to obtain a config DUMP in | | the syslog? | | First, dumping config to s