Send inn-workers mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of inn-workers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: nnrpd given the same PID as innfeed (Julien ?LIE)
2. Re: nnrpd given the same PID as innfeed (Richard Kettlewell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:26:17 +0200
From: Julien ?LIE <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: nnrpd given the same PID as innfeed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Hi Richard,
> Patch attached. I've lightly tested it, including inspecting strace
> output while manually poking the system to check it's not gone
> completely off the rails.
Thanks for your patch. I have been running it for a few hours without
any problem. I hope the race condition between signals now belongs to
the past.
+ for(n = 0; n < signal_max; ++n)
+ if(sigismember(&signals_masked, n)
+ && !sigismember(&signals_unmasked, n))
+ signal(n, SIG_DFL);
+ /* Now it's OK to unblock signals we ha
Couldn't we use sigaction() with act.sa_handler=SIG_DLF, act.sa_mask
empty (no need to have signals_masked here if I understand well) and
act.sa_flags=SA_RESTART if available?
Elsewhere in the code, we do not use signal() when sigaction() is usable.
--
Julien ?LIE
? ? Avez-vous ?t? attaqu?s par une force sup?rieure en nombre ?
? Sup?rieure en nombre?
? ?On ne peut pas dire !
? ?Ils ?taient un?
? ?Et pas bien gros avec ?a ! ? (Ast?rix)
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:06:07 +0100
From: Richard Kettlewell <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: nnrpd given the same PID as innfeed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On 2015-06-17 21:26, Julien ?LIE wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> Patch attached. I've lightly tested it, including inspecting strace
>> output while manually poking the system to check it's not gone
>> completely off the rails.
>
> Thanks for your patch. I have been running it for a few hours without
> any problem. I hope the race condition between signals now belongs to
> the past.
>
> + for(n = 0; n < signal_max; ++n)
> + if(sigismember(&signals_masked, n)
> + && !sigismember(&signals_unmasked, n))
> + signal(n, SIG_DFL);
> + /* Now it's OK to unblock signals we ha
>
> Couldn't we use sigaction() with act.sa_handler=SIG_DLF, act.sa_mask
> empty (no need to have signals_masked here if I understand well) and
> act.sa_flags=SA_RESTART if available?
> Elsewhere in the code, we do not use signal() when sigaction() is usable.
We could, but I think it will amount to the same thing, since the
signals we catch all default to terminate or ignore, making sa_mask and
sa_flags irrelevant.
ttfn/rjk
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
inn-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
End of inn-workers Digest, Vol 73, Issue 6
******************************************
