On 2008-05-23, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-23 12:56]: >> This reminds me, is there a deliberate reason for forcing the control >> socket to be unlinked (at least ospfd and bgpd, probably others) rather >> than just refusing to run if it already exists? Admittedly it's not a >> mistake many people will be making twice... > > that would be kind of a DoS. > if the daemon terminates unexpectedly for some reason (as in, doesn't > get to clean up) the socket will stay there. and, kaboom, cannot start > it.
Is that really valid? If the system reboots, /var/run gets cleaned anyway. If the daemon is monitored and automatically restarted, I think whatever is restarting it could be responsible to clean those files ...
