On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:26:30AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > Unfortunately I'm not sure of a good alternative to re-opening the file. > Keeping the fd open would be way to fragile as editors often > create a new file rather than editing in-place.
Indeed, keeping the fd open would not work. Many scripts do a cp or mv of the new file over the old one. > I guess we could pipe the configuration over a socket or something, > and we could also use the same socket as the error-condition detector > that you were discussing in an earlier email. Using a socket would be very nice indeed, because the new process would be able to pass the config it has on its command line. But that requires basic socket handling from the new process before we ever start the polling loop, and for long I've thought this required some code duplication. I may be wrong though. In the mean time, I really think that keeping the master out of the chroot is the way to go. In my opinion it makes a lot of sense : the master is the one which owns rights on ports, config, etc... and which can fork slave process deprived from their permissions. Seen that way, there's really nothing that justifies jailing the master. > I live in Tokyo. Thankfully I am ok. But as a result of the recent > earthquakes in Japan I am likely to experience rolling blackouts over the > next few weeks starting tomorrow. So I may be a little unresponsive from > time to time. Your understanding is appreciated. OK, thanks for the info, I did not know you were there. I certainly understand the difficulties you might face, given the terrible images I've seen on the net! I wish you and your relatives a good luck ! Best regards, Willy
