Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, Niclas Zeising <zeising+freebsd@daemonic.se>, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-stable-11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r331880 - stable/11/etc Message-ID: <201804091625.w39GPXpK019557@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaH=9bXidEQ3Xk_tOL1txpqQiX_j1w0cjhetSMvErTrkwQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Rodney W. Grimes > <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Rodney W. Grimes > >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rodney W. Grimes > >> >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Rodney W. Grimes > >> >> >> <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 04/02/18 17:39, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Author: kevans > >> >> >> >> >> Date: Mon Apr 2 15:28:48 2018 > >> >> >> >> >> New Revision: 331880 > >> >> >> >> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/331880 > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Log: > >> >> >> >> >> MFC r328331: Support configuring arbitrary limits(1) for any rc.conf daemon > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Usage is ${name}_limits, and the argument is any flags accepted by > >> >> >> >> >> limits(1), such as `-n 100' (e.g. only allow 100 open files). > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Modified: > >> >> >> >> >> stable/11/etc/rc.subr > >> >> >> >> >> Directory Properties: > >> >> >> >> >> stable/11/ (props changed) > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Modified: stable/11/etc/rc.subr > >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================================== > >> >> >> >> >> --- stable/11/etc/rc.subr Mon Apr 2 15:07:41 2018 (r331879) > >> >> >> >> >> +++ stable/11/etc/rc.subr Mon Apr 2 15:28:48 2018 (r331880) > >> >> >> >> >> @@ -773,6 +773,8 @@ check_startmsgs() > >> >> >> >> >> # > >> >> >> >> >> # ${name}_login_class n Login class to use, else "daemon". > >> >> >> >> >> # > >> >> >> >> >> +# ${name}_limits n limits(1) to apply to ${command}. > >> >> >> >> >> +# > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Caution, limits(1) is in /usr/bin, this code can fail if used before > >> >> >> >> > /usr is mounted. (Ie, our rc.initdiskless) is probably broken by > >> >> >> >> > this change if a call is made to limits. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Sorry for jumping on this so late. This is also an issue in CURRENT, > >> >> >> >> and has been since at least 2016. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I was aware that it was an issue and why I made a comment about it > >> >> >> > being MFC'ed. Though I had forgot a bug report existed. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm kind of surprised we haven't had more complaints about this- the > >> >> >> original commit for this stuff landed before stable/11 was even > >> >> >> branched, so it's been broken for all of 11.x's lifetime. > >> >> > > >> >> > History has taught me it takes a long time for this type of > >> >> > breakage to usually surface in a noticable way. Also I think > >> >> > until you merged this last ${name}_limits thing it actually > >> >> > didn't cause an issue, except for the few like me running > >> >> > diskless systems and or seperate /usr. > >> >> > >> >> I don't see how this merge could possibly have been the cause of any > >> >> claimed issues- like I said before, it didn't add any limits > >> >> invocations, it added an arg to the limits invocation that already > >> >> existed. You can see this pretty clearly from the diff, we didn't even > >> >> change any conditions for limits to be invoked. > >> > > >> > limits_mysql="NO" is defined by the startup script for mysql, > >> > that now causes /etc/rc to try and use that variable in a > >> > different way. > >> > > >> > You added a variable, one that was already in use by some other > >> > /etc/rc* related component. Collision of differening uses is > >> > causing errors. > >> > > >> > >> Ah, apologies, I misread your previous e-mail and had interpreted it > >> as you claiming again that this broke things for those of you "running > >> diskless systems and or seperate /usr." -- this other breakage, these > >> are things we can fix and aren't really large hurdles to climb over. > > > > Mostly true, other than the hurdle of that 0mp mentions in his > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227205 > > We need to remember that we cannot simply switch to > > the new mechanism as it is only available in 12-CURRENT > > and soon in 11-STABLE (and 11.2). > > > > I am not sure how to handle that with the users, it is a operational > > interface change in how limits are done for these ports and probably > > is going to break a lot of peoples systems if they try to update > > from 11.1 to 11.2 because there /etc/rc.conf file is full of old > > stuff that this new stuff is incompatible with. > > > > IMHO, it would be best to post pone this change to 12, as people > > are more willing to suffer painful upgrades when going between > > major versions. > > > > Right- so, back out this MFC (and the subsequent FreeBSD_version bump) > and fix the ports to do the right thing for 12.x while that's still > not a technically supported branch? I think that might be the easiest path forward. Not sure if you can back out the version bump, maybe move it forward another notch, leaving a narrow window of when this existed, and no one should have to deal with that window hopefuly. You may want to wait for input from 0mp. > >> We just need people like 0mp that are actually inclined to address it > >> in ports, and we need to actually communicate changes like this with > >> ports people and assess what's going to break and make a plan to get > >> it fixed. > > > > Problem was/is no one had the foresight to see the ports breakage > > coming and avoid it in some way. That happens, its engineering, > > lets find a fix and move on. > > > >> IMO this in particular wasn't a major change, and it shouldn't have > >> been too big of a deal (unlike the commit that it built upon). I don't > >> think it should've been broken in head for two months in the various > >> ports that 0mp has identified- even if people don't run these > >> databases on head, we should've assessed the fallout and fixed it > >> somewhere in the two month's time. We're not talking half the ports > >> tree, we're talking < 30 ports. =( > > > > Its usually the tiny, minor, itty bit little nit change that bites > > the hardest :-) > > > > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201804091625.w39GPXpK019557>