Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:09:38 -0500 From: Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libinit idea Message-ID: <1084e79a6f6ff62ed3dca5ee0bcd45f3@mail.lifanov.com> In-Reply-To: <3F3C8E1C-C58C-4489-9762-ACA742B2A0C4@FreeBSD.org> References: <BLU179-W28221A0539478FDDF45ADDC6840@phx.gbl> <CACdU%2Bf9KVc7EKcVAN2vtyO7UvC%2BDM=iMsiQBmRzmA%2BcU1ZL=gA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPS9%2BSubCSfBc4NYsZfJCQ_7ce%2BcCDjFT-BTL6x=ynYuYD%2BwVA@mail.gmail.com> <20140223182232.GA25967@lucius.XxX> <CAOjFWZ7Oi=krGiyk5m1P8aJcshQ_AjsPvc7SiU4H0LGidQWXqw@mail.gmail.com> <3F3C8E1C-C58C-4489-9762-ACA742B2A0C4@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-02-23 13:47, David Chisnall wrote: > On 23 Feb 2014, at 18:31, Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The main developer for systemd is very anti-portability and >> anti-!Linux. He >> had actively rejected patches that made his projects work on non-Linux >> systems. In order to port systemd to a non-Linux system, he wants you >> to >> first implement every Linux feature that systemd uses. >> >> systemd is a non-starter, and not with considering. > > I don't think that's a relevant discussion. The license would likely > preclude systemd from making it into the base system anyway. Please > let's not be too negative about the author of systemd: he's > responsible for more people switching from Linux to FreeBSD than any > other single individual I can think of and I would strongly encourage > him to continue. > I also noticed this. > The relevant question is whether it does anything in a way that is > sufficiently sensible to merit a FreeBSD service management > infrastructure doing it in the same (or a similar) way. > > Oh, two things missing from my original list: > > - Service jails should be able to run without an init process, with > just the required libraries installed and the host machine's init > system starting the jail and the service process(es) inside it. > Isn't this a bit too complicated? If there is an init script under $jail/usr/local/etc/rc.d, then the host init will need to find it, which can be even more complicated if rc search path in the jail is customized (prefixed if it's managed by a different department, for example). Host init will have to read the jail configuration, parse it too, and then manage children and pids of the jailed services, including reparenting, all within a jail context. Then the admin in that jail would need to be able to restart services, affecting host init, which opens a whole new can of worms. If init program is skinny and not too complicated, which it is, there is no tangible overhead. And if a jail really needs a single simple service, init process in the jail can *be* that, like jexec myjail /bin/sh -c somestuff (or even /usr/local/bin/myservice -c myservice conf). > - The init system should use process descriptors, not pids, for > tracking processes, preventing issues with pid reuse and so on (and > removing the need to write pid files). If process descriptors do not > provide the required functionality (e.g. the ability to trace forked > children) then this should be added. > This is a good idea. > David > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1084e79a6f6ff62ed3dca5ee0bcd45f3>