On 20/06/2015 21:46, Etienne Champetier wrote: > Hi, > > 2015-06-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 John Crispin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > On 20/06/2015 20:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > On 20 June 2015 at 13:56, Jo-Philipp Wich <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> i dont like this idea at all. calling ld-preload on every started app > >>> just seems wrong > >> > >> I was the one suggesting the idea since we needed a solution which does > >> not require modification of downstream programs. We could restrict the > >> preloading to programs which requested stdio relaying support from > procd > >> and not preload for the rest. > > > > AFAIK there are 3 solutions to this: > > 1) Modifying every app we want to support with procd + logging > > 2) Using PTY which I tried in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/486670/ > > 3) Using LD_PRELOAD > > > > The PTY was pointed as not the best choice, so that's why I continued > > with LD_PRELOAD. As Jo-Philipp pointed, it's the same solution > > "stdbuf" uses. I'm afraid there isn't any better alternative :( > > > > oh well, i still dont like it but that is not really relevant i > guess ... :) > > Aren't you using LD_PRELOAD for procd jailing stuff ?
yes, i do. you simply did not understood what i said. i dont have a problem with preloading per-se but with the solution for setting the buffering. however if there really is no saner way then so be it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
