Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
Bruce Dubbs wrote: > de...@hawaii.rr.com wrote: > >> Well, then something else is amiss. the statusproc() function defined here: >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/scripts/apds02.html >> does not have the *) case. >> >> And neither does the one defined in >> lfs-bootscripts-20111017/lfs/lib/services/init-functions >> as downloaded just now from >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.0/lfs-bootscripts-20111017.tar.bz2 > > I now remember that I fixed that on Nov 14 in svn. I guess it didn't > get into the errata. Try using the current -dev version: > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/development/lfs-bootscripts-20120116.tar.bz2 Aha. That did it. Many thanks. For the mailing list archives; Upgrading bootscripts from the 20111017 version to 20120116 requires devtmpfs support in the kernel. -dean takemori -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
de...@hawaii.rr.com wrote: > Well, then something else is amiss. the statusproc() function defined here: > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/scripts/apds02.html > does not have the *) case. > > And neither does the one defined in > lfs-bootscripts-20111017/lfs/lib/services/init-functions > as downloaded just now from > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.0/lfs-bootscripts-20111017.tar.bz2 I now remember that I fixed that on Nov 14 in svn. I guess it didn't get into the errata. Try using the current -dev version: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/development/lfs-bootscripts-20120116.tar.bz2 -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
>deant at hawaii.rr.com wrote:
>
>You are not giving the whole loop:
>
> while true; do
>case "${1}" in
>
>-p)
>pidfile="${2}"
>shift 2
>;;
>
>*)
>if [ -n "${2}" ]; then
>echo "Too many arguments"
>return 1
>else
>break
>fi
>;;
>esac
>done
>
>
>The 'break' command breaks out of the while loop. It's not the same as
>C/C++.
>
>The 'functions' file is only present for a few (currently 19 are left)
>bootscripts in BLFS that have not yet been updated to LFS 7.0 syntax.
>
> -- Bruce
Well, then something else is amiss. the statusproc() function defined here:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/scripts/apds02.html
does not have the *) case.
And neither does the one defined in
lfs-bootscripts-20111017/lfs/lib/services/init-functions
as downloaded just now from
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.0/lfs-bootscripts-20111017.tar.bz2
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
de...@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
>>> while true; do
>>> case "${1}" in
>>>
>>> -p)
>>> pidfile="${2}"
>>> shift 2
>>> ;;
>>> esac
>>> done
> Unless I'm misreading and mis-testing it, there's no break out of
> the loop;
You are not giving the whole loop:
while true; do
case "${1}" in
-p)
pidfile="${2}"
shift 2
;;
*)
if [ -n "${2}" ]; then
echo "Too many arguments"
return 1
else
break
fi
;;
esac
done
The 'break' command breaks out of the while loop. It's not the same as
C/C++.
The 'functions' file is only present for a few (currently 19 are left)
bootscripts in BLFS that have not yet been updated to LFS 7.0 syntax.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
>Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>Dean Takemori wrote:
>>lfs/lib/services/init-functions defines statusproc() with this snippit
>>to process arguments:
>>
>>while true; do
>> case "${1}" in
>>
>> -p)
>> pidfile="${2}"
>> shift 2
>> ;;
>> esac
>>done
>>
>>
>>Isn't this broken?
>>
>>What's broken? Can you give an example of how it breaks?
>>
Unless I'm misreading and mis-testing it, there's no break out of
the loop;
For example, given this:
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# bash --version | head -1
GNU bash, version 4.2.10(2)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# cat /run/fcron.pid
2066
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# ps xa | grep 2066
2066 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/sbin/fcron
2333 tty1 S+ 0:00 grep 2066
And then doing this:
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# source lfs/lib/services/init-functions
Both of these never return;
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# statusproc -p /run/fcron.pid /usr/sbin/fcron
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# statusproc /usr/sbin/fcron
But if one does instead (after commenting out the init_params
line as per the 7.0 errata)
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# source lfs/init.d/functions
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# statusproc -p /run/fcron.pid /usr/sbin/fcron
fcron is running with Process ID(s) 2066.
root:/tmp/lfs-bootscripts-20111017# statusproc /usr/sbin/fcron
fcron is running with Process ID(s) 2066.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 01/22/2012 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Dean Takemori wrote:
>>> lfs/lib/services/init-functions defines statusproc() with this snippit
>>> to process arguments:
>>>
>>>while true; do
>>> case "${1}" in
>>>
>>> -p)
>>> pidfile="${2}"
>>> shift 2
>>> ;;
>>> esac
>>>done
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't this broken?
>> What's broken? Can you give an example of how it breaks?
> I think this might carry over from the original so the problem dates
> back to me or possibly even Nathan and Alex. I didn't look. At any rate,
> the problem is that there is no error checking. I don't believe that
> statusproc() is intended to check multiple processes from multiple
> executables (multiple processes from one executable yes). For the -p
> case, you should verify that $2 is a valid file, and that $3 is
> executable or undefined, and add a * case, that $1 is executable and $2
> = "-p" && shift 1;. If any of the above are false, a return value of 2
> should fit the LSB spec with optional error message "Error: invalid or
> excessive argument(s)". A case could be made that $3 in the -p case or
> $1 in the * case not being executable should return a value of 5, but
> I'm not sure that value should apply here. I didn't look to see if the
> executable is evaluated later in the function, but the function should
> most definitely have argument handling for excessive arguments in the
> while loop.
>
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html
I still don't understand what is broken. In every place statusproc is
called, it is from the user running '/etc/init.d/service status'. The
maximum harm would be that the wrong thing is displayed, but only
postfix and swat specify a -p parameter.
Until we establish what is broken, I am not in favor of making any changes.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
On 01/22/2012 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dean Takemori wrote:
>> lfs/lib/services/init-functions defines statusproc() with this snippit
>> to process arguments:
>>
>>while true; do
>> case "${1}" in
>>
>> -p)
>> pidfile="${2}"
>> shift 2
>> ;;
>> esac
>>done
>>
>>
>> Isn't this broken?
> What's broken? Can you give an example of how it breaks?
>
> -- Bruce
I think this might carry over from the original so the problem dates
back to me or possibly even Nathan and Alex. I didn't look. At any rate,
the problem is that there is no error checking. I don't believe that
statusproc() is intended to check multiple processes from multiple
executables (multiple processes from one executable yes). For the -p
case, you should verify that $2 is a valid file, and that $3 is
executable or undefined, and add a * case, that $1 is executable and $2
= "-p" && shift 1;. If any of the above are false, a return value of 2
should fit the LSB spec with optional error message "Error: invalid or
excessive argument(s)". A case could be made that $3 in the -p case or
$1 in the * case not being executable should return a value of 5, but
I'm not sure that value should apply here. I didn't look to see if the
executable is evaluated later in the function, but the function should
most definitely have argument handling for excessive arguments in the
while loop.
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
Dean Takemori wrote:
> lfs/lib/services/init-functions defines statusproc() with this snippit
> to process arguments:
>
> while true; do
> case "${1}" in
>
> -p)
> pidfile="${2}"
> shift 2
> ;;
> esac
> done
>
>
> Isn't this broken?
What's broken? Can you give an example of how it breaks?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-dev] bootscripts-20111017 statusproc() broken?
lfs/lib/services/init-functions defines statusproc() with this snippit
to process arguments:
while true; do
case "${1}" in
-p)
pidfile="${2}"
shift 2
;;
esac
done
Isn't this broken? I notice that the statusproc() defined in the
(deprecated) lfs/init.d/functions includes both an unknown option
error message and a break out of the loop:
while true;
do
case "${1}" in
-p)
pidfile="${2}"
shift2
;;
-*)
log_failure_msg "Unknown Option: ${1}"
return 2
;;
*)
break
;;
esac
done
-dean takemori
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
