* Stephen Hahn <sch at sun.com> [2009-01-21 23:28]: > * David Powell <David.Powell at sun.com> [2009-01-21 22:47]: > > Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > >>> * Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> [2009-01-21 00:14]: > >>>> Perhaps we need a new system call, or proc(4) extension, or perhaps we > >>>> could use proc(4) as is, via the agent LWP (to open the new logfile in > >>>> each victim process and dup2() it into place as fildes 1 and 2). > >>> There's an old /proc-based tool in someone's home directory that does > >>> this; I've asked that someone to see if we can examine the source. > >> > >> > >> Argh. (We really should not create tools which change attributes through > >> the agent LWP; and those we have should be scrapped) > > > > Agreed. > > > > More generally, the agent LWP is a debugging tool. It shouldn't play > > a role in our administrative infrastructure. > > Both of you must have sent your messages prematurely, as neither > contains a suggestion for solving the actual problem.
Ignore me. I'm bothered about other things. Apologies to you and to Casper. (In the meantime, using the left side of my brain, I've looked at the write(2) implementation for tmpfs, ufs, and zfs, and for fprintf(3C), and don't see why logadm -c doesn't work--O_APPEND is correctly handled (or not overridden) throughout. A test program seems due.) - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
