Your message dated Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:03:35 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: ntpdate: Please use flock(1) in /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate has caused the Debian Bug report #731976, regarding ntpdate: Please use flock(1) in /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 731976: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731976 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: ntpdate Version: 1:4.2.6.p5+dfsg-2 Severity: normal Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, the code in /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate tries to prevent parallel excution of ntpdate-debian by perusing the lockfile-progs package. If this is not installed - and it seldom is here -, the script proceeds without. Plan B works quite well: The listening port of an ntpdate process which will cause any second one to fail - unless "-u" has been added to NTPOPTIONS in /etc/default/ntpdate, which I did for certain reasons. Then, several ntpdate processes may happily try to correct the time, causing multiple jumps, like in Dec 11 21:47:46 host ntpdate[2452]: step time server 192.168.29.1 offset 617.710431 sec Dec 11 21:47:46 host ntpdate[2432]: step time server 192.168.29.1 offset 617.710419 sec As a result, the system time was somewhat ten minutes into the future, additionally causing nasty fsck warnings during the reboot I had to do a few seconds later. Here's my suggestion: Use flock(1) instead, provided by the essential util-linux package thus avaiable everywhere. Also the code is shorter now. If the semaphore is locked, no second ntpdate process is started at all, assuming one is good enough. Regards, Christoph --- /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate 2008-07-09 17:23:38.000000000 +0200 +++ /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate 2013-12-11 22:08:23.000000000 +0100 @@ -32,18 +32,10 @@ LOCKFILE=/var/lock/ntpdate -# Avoid running more than one at a time -if [ -x /usr/bin/lockfile-create ]; then - lockfile-create $LOCKFILE - lockfile-touch $LOCKFILE & - LOCKTOUCHPID="$!" -fi +( + flock --exclusive --nonblock 9 || exit 0 -/usr/sbin/ntpdate-debian -s $OPTS 2>/dev/null || : - -if [ -x /usr/bin/lockfile-create ] ; then - kill $LOCKTOUCHPID - lockfile-remove $LOCKFILE -fi + /usr/sbin/ntpdate-debian -s $OPTS 2>/dev/null || : +) 9>"$LOCKFILE" ) & -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.2 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.10.17 (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages ntpdate depends on: ii dpkg 1.16.12 ii libc6 2.13-38 ii libssl1.0.0 1.0.1e-2 ii netbase 5.0 Versions of packages ntpdate recommends: pn lockfile-progs <none> ntpdate suggests no packages. -- Configuration Files: /etc/default/ntpdate changed [not included] -- no debconf information
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---fixed 731976 1:4.2.8p8+dfsg-1 thanks Christoph Biedl wrote... > Here's my suggestion: Use flock(1) instead, provided by the essential > util-linux package thus avaiable everywhere. This has been implemented somewhen in the stretch development cycle, closing. Christoph
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
