Summary: base: Make pid file safe to read by rename it from temporary created file [#2432] Review request for Ticket(s): 2432 Peer Reviewer(s): AndersW, HansN, Ramesh Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop, release Development branch: ticket-2432 Base revision: ced8d99726a51b9306e53fb8fc1f80f70f715b96 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/review
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services n OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 9ea4b18305677021af75f40b099203954c10f695 Author: Minh Chau <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:22:42 +1000 base: Make pid file safe to read by rename it from temporary created file [#2432] At startup, osaftransportd waits for osafdtmd.pid file creation and then reads dtm pid. If osafdtmd.pid has not been completedly created but osaftransportd still receives IN_CREATE, osaftransported will fail to read pid of dtmd. That results in a node reboot with a reason as "osafdtmd failed to start". The patch implements an approach suggested by Anders Widell, which creates a completed temporary pid file first, then renames it to correct pid file name. Whenever osaftransportd is notified to read dtmd's pid, the data in pid file should be always safe to read. In addition to this, FileNotify needs to introduce IN_MOVED_TO event. Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/base/daemon.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++--------- src/base/file_notify.cc | 10 +++++++++- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- TC1: Opensafd starts up as normal TC2: Simulate reported problem by start osaftransportd before dtmd, and add sleep(1) before dtmd calls fflush() in __create_pidfile Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Node starts successfully in both TCs Without the patch, TC2 fails due to node reboot Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- ack from reviewers Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
