Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:55:12 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r332773 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <CACNAnaGACvG5hFBDyRf1bCzdenCB0Ab=fx%2BGjCL6otjNuEExWA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201804191540.w3JFesdQ066488@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <CACNAnaFJ_C9uqM4O9KyBbjPRRq%2Bsk9%2B-DfDBeTo1TG8-Sh=kKg@mail.gmail.com> <201804191540.w3JFesdQ066488@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Rodney W. Grimes >> >>> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: >> >>> >> Author: kevans >> >>> >> Date: Thu Apr 19 15:02:53 2018 >> >>> >> New Revision: 332773 >> >>> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/332773 >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Log: >> >>> >> Fix ddb rc script >> >>> >> >> >>> >> r288291 added a call to limits(1), which isn't available before >> >>> >> partitions >> >>> >> are mounted. This broke the ddb rc script, which does not provide its >> >>> >> own >> >>> >> start_cmd. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Alleviate the situation here by providing a start_cmd. We still have >> >>> >> other >> >>> >> problems with diskless setups that need to be considered, but this is >> >>> >> a >> >>> >> start. >> >>> > >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > Also didn't cy identify a second one of these? >> >>> > Or am I confusing yet another issue? >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> He identified a second early script that didn't specify start_cmd, but >> >>> it was a non-issue because it's invoked independently of rc.subr. >> >> >> >> >> >> One would think that it shouldn't invoke limits at all if foo_limits= wasn't >> >> specified... Would make the feature much less invasive. > > I agree. This should be implemented, > if it isn't already working that way. > >> >> >> > >> > foo_limits was introduced long after the initial invocation, which was >> > introduced to enforce consistent limits of daemons run from rc.subr. >> > Not doing this due to the lack of foo_flags would certainly kill the >> > original intent, I'm afraid. >> >> I do wonder if some kind of kenv var or something would be appropriate >> to disable this whole mess for some setups that it just clearly won't >> work in, but maybe that's a terrible thought. > > I think you miss understood Warner. He is saying that if there is no > rc var *_limits there should be no invocation of limits(1) at all, > making much of this whole mess for many of us a NOP. No, I understood that perfectly... the *_limits rc var was introduced much later just so one can add extra flags to this limits(1) invocation. This would be counter-productive to the original intention of the limits(1) invocation, which had no concept of foo_limits until lately and was intended to just generally apply to all rc scripts without a bunch of redundant crud in every rc script that it can apply to. > I actually believe that is how the code already works, but not sure. Negative, as I've already mentioned a couple of times... limits(1) is applied basically unconditionally.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaGACvG5hFBDyRf1bCzdenCB0Ab=fx%2BGjCL6otjNuEExWA>