Hi Peter, On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 01:27:15PM +0100, Peter Warasin wrote: > Sebastian Harl wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:59:04PM +0100, Peter Warasin wrote: > >> I wonder if there's a good reason why this has been commented out, and > >> if it can be unlink()'d safely, without side-effects? > > > > Well, we cannot be sure that the socket file was created by some other > > instance of collectd before. So, since collectd is usually running with > > root privileges, we could possibly remove unrelated data. > > Hmm, is there a chance having collectd running multiple times using the > same socket file?
Well, yes -- if it's misconfigured … ;-) Seriously, though, this is always an error, since no two instances can listen on the same (UNIX) socket. > If that is the case probably it is an error and we should print out a > warning that the file will be removed? This would be caught by the "mechanism" mentioned below, though. > > At the very least (imho), we should check if that file is a UNIX socket, > > and possibly (I'm not sure if that's possible [in a portable way]) check > > if the socket is not in use. If both of that is the case, we can be > > fairly sure that removing the file is safe. > > Ok, i understand. That makes sense. Are you willing to give that a try and provide a patch? TIA, Sebastian -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ collectd mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.verplant.org/listinfo/collectd
