http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4304
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |triage
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-13 22:56 -------
Theory: The shutdown command is basically using
> killproc spamd
In what sequence does killproc work? If it kills parent and then children, this
should be OK. I suspect it kills sequentially by process number, or by
sequential position within the O/S procedure table. In either case, there could
be a child ahead of the parent spamd in the kill sequence. That allows for a
timing issue:
1) "killproc spamd" issued
2) child killed
3) spamd begins to respawn killed child
4) spamd killed, after child is already in process of starting, but before spamd
can record child in its internal process table
4a) spamd parent kills all children in its process table, missing that one
4b) spamd parent exits
leaving that child running.
Is this a viable theory? Should spamd parent perhaps be modified to defer kill
and HUP signals during the respawn process?
Or has this maybe already been done in 3.1.0?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
