Hi, On Wed, Jul 19, Guilherme Manika wrote:
> > The init scripts proposal seems to be self-conflicting to > me. sysinit/initactions.sgml says: > > "Init files should ensure that they will behave sensibly if invoked > with start when the service is already running, or with stop when it > isn't, and that they don't kill unfortunately-named user > processes. (...)" > > sysinit/initfunctions.sgml defines a algorithm for pidofproc and > killproc that does not seem to comply with this. If the basename.pid > file is not available, it uses pidof to find the running process. > However, pidof(8)'s man page says that it is not safe if all it gets > is the basename of the process (it may return unfortunately-named user > processes otherwise). The usage of ps in case pidof fails is also > broken in the same sense. > > Possible solutions: either require that killproc and pidofproc get a > complete path as an argument, and usage of 'ps' as one of the possible > ways to get the pid of a process is dropped; or define that > start-stop-daemon should be present and use it (I believe s-s-d > doesn't have the problems described). I think killproc and pidofproc should get the complete path as an argument. We do it for SuSE Linux since a long time, it is the only secure way not to kill the wrong process. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse, cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.
