Carlos Carvalho wrote:
It seems this has been sent this only to me but since Simon asks
everybody (at the end) I'm answering to the list.
Ah, sorry. WrongButtonError.
Exactly, that's what I had in mind. The savelog script in Debian can
also do it.
Another new thing I learned today. I don't like savelog's compression
scheme though. Ignoring the older files, is seems to to
mv log.0 log.1
compress log.1
touch log.0
and then the signal can be sent. Since the old file (renamed to log.1)
can still be written 'till the signal is sent, and some time afterwards,
then the compressedfile might be written to and corrupted. I think the
scheme where log.0 and log.1 are uncompressed and only log.2, log3 etc
are compressed is much safer.
>Adding the signal is slightly non-trivial (there's a whole set of
>processes which might have the log file open) but it should be possible.
I trust you :-)
I'll get some code out this week sometime, unless I get too busy.
>Does anybody have an opinion on the best signal to use , given that
>SIGHUP is already taken?
I'd go with USR2 as you suggested. HUP can also do it in addition to
what it already does, like some other daemons do.
SIGUSR2 it is.
One thing that is different in dnsmasq compared to many other daemons
is that HUP does not re-read the main config, so it's not a full
reload. I guess that's because dnsmasq has a lot of state to preserve
(other processes, cache, leases). Is this correct?
The overriding reason is that some start-up actions need root
permissions, which get thrown away after start-up. Imagine that you
change dnsmasq.conf to enable DHCP and SIGHUP. Dnsmasq re-reads the file
and needs to open port 68 to do DHCP, but that needs root permissions.
The state isn't a problem: the only thing that needs to be kept is the
lease database, and that's safely in a file. Dnsmasq is designed to be
re-startable at any point without loosing data. It would be possible to
make a root process which forks the real process, and can kill it and
re-fork a new one with new configuration, but that's just equivalent to
killing and restarting the daemon anyway, and costs another process in
memory at all times.
Cheers,
Simon.
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
