On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This is bogus, anything can die in an OOM situation. Are you going to
put all daemons into inittab?
True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
some special treatment IMHO.
Actually, I am pondering
Thanks a lot folks,
you provided good arguments with these two bug reports. I've
considered the issue on my own as well and came to a different
implementation.
Instead of making syslogd/klogd controlled by init they will now be
restarted by regular cron scripts if they got lost in the meantime.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:02:39PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Such a table should not (and needs not) to benefit processes running by
someone else than root, unless you wanted to do such a thing on purpose and
coded it like that.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Dominik Kubla wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:13:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I want the LOGGING daemons (i.e. only syslog and klogd), which ALREADY run
as root, to be restarted should they die. Due to OOM killer, due to
segfaults. Whatever.
It
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
some special treatment IMHO.
Even so, starting it from inittab is too much of a kludge. For one thing,
it means that /etc/init.d/syslogd stop will either not work, or
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:40:41AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
You should be trying to avoid OOM situations in the first place.
That is not always possible, and sometimes a kernel VM screwup will cause
it, no?
Hmm.. OOM Killer should avoid killing long running root daemons,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
some special treatment IMHO.
Even so, starting it from inittab is too much of a kludge. For one thing,
It is far better
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian Weimer wrote:
The package installation scripts should offer to run klogd from
inittab, since klogd regularly dies in OOM situations and is not
restarted if the current mechanism is used.
IMHO the right solution is to slowly replace
also sprach Tommi Virtanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.12.29.2035 +0100]:
IMHO the right solution is to slowly replace sysvinit's init.d
with something that can monitor whether the children are still
alive. For _everything_.
ntpdate??? for instance...
surely not everything, but
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:09:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
It is far better than anything else I can think of. Fiddling with the OOM
killer to avoid killing syslog and klog is worse, for example. Writing
Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Processes
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:09:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
It is far better than anything else I can think of. Fiddling with the OOM
killer to avoid killing syslog and klog is worse, for example. Writing
Nope, that's exactly what the
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Processes
like syslogd is meant to be the last ones to be killed.
I am not at ease to go poking on the OOM, though. Someone else better used
to kernel programming should do
(not cc'ed to the bts)
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, that's exactly what the OOM killer was designed to do. Processes
like syslogd is meant to be the last ones to be killed.
I am not at ease to go poking on the OOM,
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:03, Dominik Kubla wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:47:27PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Nowhere does it use the process name to lessen the chances of killing a
process. IMHO it would be a nice idea to have such a whitelist just in
case.
Extremely bad
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:03, Dominik Kubla wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:47:27PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Nowhere does it use the process name to lessen the chances of killing a
process. IMHO it would be a nice idea to have such
What do people think?
Please copy mails that you consider important in this context to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] so they get recorded
properly.
Regards,
Joey
Florian Weimer wrote:
Package: klogd
Version: 1.4.1-8
Severity: wishlist
Tags: security
The package
Florian Weimer wrote:
Package: klogd
Version: 1.4.1-8
Severity: wishlist
Tags: security
The package installation scripts should offer to run klogd from
inittab, since klogd regularly dies in OOM situations and is not
restarted if the current mechanism is used.
This is bogus, anything
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
This is bogus, anything can die in an OOM situation. Are you going to
put all daemons into inittab?
True, true. However, sysklogd and klogd are logging daemons. They deserve
some special treatment IMHO.
Actually, I am pondering doing such a thing to sshd
18 matches
Mail list logo
