Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:01:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Wes Morgan <morganw@chemicals.tacorp.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/crypto/openssh sshd.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007041957120.83838-100000@green.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000704121214.99862C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Robert Watson wrote: > > I must have missed that commit while catching up from travel. I don't > like that technique for restarting daemons -- for one thing, it relies on > /proc being mounted. I have a continuing strong objection to the presence > of "file" in /proc in the first place, as I don't feel it substantially > contributes to useful functionality in /proc. While the switch from vnode > reference to symlink is an improvement, I'm still not sure any of the > associated complexity is a good idea. Does anything actually rely on this > behavior, other than sshd now? No, no, you two are mistaken here; this is a fallback if the execv() fails for the saved argv. It works like this: try to exec what we were invoked with. try to exec what we were invoked with _determined by the file system_, using /proc give up. The middle step is what I added. There's no reliance on procfs. procfs exists as a convenience, and in this case it makes it possible for you to HUP sshd even when you invoked it using a non-canonical name. This is a big convenience when you start daemons interactively. It's Good (TM) :) -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007041957120.83838-100000>