Re: [lfs-support] init-functions: new pidofproc function: posix compliant: no sub shells: tested
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:12:16 -0500 DJ Lucas wrote: > On 4/9/2021 5:16 AM, Scott Andrews wrote: > > This script is not intended to run with ash, the she bang line is > > as follows > > > > #!/bin/bash --posix > > > My apologies for the duplicate reply Scott, I didn't reply to list. > > > Unfortunately, init-functions is a special case. You cannot > guarantee that the calling script will use /bin/bash. You can on a lfs/blfs system and the script all the init scripts use /bin/bash. >That script > will be run under whatever interpreter is used by the calling > script (the schebang in init-functions is basically meaningless). > When making any changes in init-functions, you have to test at > least under dash (it's not a 1:1 for AST/AT ash, but close > enough, and building AST ash is likely a non-starter now days). You > don't get a choice here, it has to be sh compliant because we have > no control over what a vendor supplied script will use. > > --DJ > Well on a lfs system which shell is the default shell? Second the various init scripts that lfs currently use are mixed /bin/bash and /bin/sh. What vendor supplied script? We are talking lfs/blfs here. Why would a vendor script source init-functions? It most likely wouldn't work anyway if it did. sh compliant in what way? POSIX? UNIX? The sh used by lfs (gnu bash) is what I call sh++ as it uses and accept most bash builtins. If you test my changes you will see that they run the same sourced by a script using /bin/sh or /bin/bash (I tested for that). And yes I do know that LSB requires the scripts to be /bin/sh, but we are again talking lfs here. BTW is dash even in the BOOK? I have no use for dash or ash. If I was to use dash and posted here I would simply be told your distro your rules, so after all, why would that not apply here for some one wanting to use dash or a vendor script? -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] init-functions: new pidofproc function: posix compliant: no sub shells: tested
On 4/9/2021 5:16 AM, Scott Andrews wrote: This script is not intended to run with ash, the she bang line is as follows #!/bin/bash --posix My apologies for the duplicate reply Scott, I didn't reply to list. Unfortunately, init-functions is a special case. You cannot guarantee that the calling script will use /bin/bash. That script will be run under whatever interpreter is used by the calling script (the schebang in init-functions is basically meaningless). When making any changes in init-functions, you have to test at least under dash (it's not a 1:1 for AST/AT ash, but close enough, and building AST ash is likely a non-starter now days). You don't get a choice here, it has to be sh compliant because we have no control over what a vendor supplied script will use. --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] init-functions: new pidofproc function: posix compliant: no sub shells: tested
On 4/9/21 12:50 PM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
Hi Scott
On 4/9/21 12:16 PM, Scott Andrews wrote:
On 4/9/21 2:10 AM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
Hi Scott
On 4/9/21 2:40 AM, Scott Andrews wrote:
# Function: pidofproc [-p pidfile] pathname
# The pidofproc function shall return one or more process
# identifiers for a particular daemon using the algorithm
# given above. Only process identifiers of running
# processes should be returned. Multiple process
# identifiers shall be separated by a single space.
# The pidofproc function shall return the LSB defined exit
# status codes for "status". It shall return 0 if the
# program is running and not 0 otherwise.
#
# If the status action is requested, the init script will return
# the following exit status codes.
# 0 program is running or service is OK
# 1 program is dead and /var/run pid file exists
# 2 program is dead and /var/lock lock file exists
# 3 program is not running
# 4 program or service status is unknown
# 5-99 reserved for future LSB use
# 100-149 reserved for distribution use
# 150-199 reserved for application use
# 200-254 reserved
function pidofproc {
local pidfile=""
local program=""
local pid=""
local pidlist=""
local list=""
local exitstatus=0
# Process arguments
while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
case "${1}" in
-p) shift; pidfile="${1}" ;;
*) program="${1##*/}" ;;
esac
shift
done
# If a PID file is not specified, make one
test -z "${pidfile}" && pidfile="/var/run/${program}.pid"
# If a pid file exists and is readable, use it.
if [[ -r "${pidfile}" ]]; then
list=$(head -n1 "${pidfile}")
else
list=$(pidof "${program}")
exitstatus=$?
if [[ ${exitstatus} -gt 0 ]]; then exitstatus=4; fi
fi
if [[ exitstatus -eq 0 ]]; then
# Figure out if all listed PIDs are running.
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null; then
pidlist+="${pid} "
else
exitstatus=1
fi
done
fi
if [[ -z "${pidlist}" ]]; then
if [[ -f "${pidfile}" ]]; then
exitstatus=1
else
exitstatus=3
fi
fi
printf "%s" "${pidlist% }"
return ${exitstatus}
}
Testing Function: pidofproc: Start
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, valid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd:
>:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid:
>:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: invalid program, no pidfile
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /usr/sbin/barf: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, invalid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p barf.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p barf.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program: valid pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 1
touch /var/run/ls.pid
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
pidofproc -p /var/run/ls.pid /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit
status:[1]
rm /var/run/ls.pid
Looks great, tested it successfully with bash. Testing with busybox
ash does not work, but naturally, this is not needed on an LFS system.
This script is not intended to run with ash, the she bang line is as
follows
#!/bin/bash --posix
Fully agree.
I do have one question however:
Testing with invalid program and valid pidfile results in printing
the pid and returning 0:
Test with vaild program and valid pidfile:
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcd
3144root@keegan:~# echo $?
0
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcf
3144root@keeganecho $?
0
In the second case, /sbin/dhcpcf does not exist, but the pidfile
does, and belongs to /sbin/dhcpcd. Is this intended behaviour? Not
that this really matters a lot in real-world, as the function
certainly will not be called that way often.
It reads the pidfile and if the process is running with then
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null;then
pidlist+="${pid} "
Re: [lfs-support] init-functions: new pidofproc function: posix compliant: no sub shells: tested
Hi Scott
On 4/9/21 12:16 PM, Scott Andrews wrote:
On 4/9/21 2:10 AM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
Hi Scott
On 4/9/21 2:40 AM, Scott Andrews wrote:
# Function: pidofproc [-p pidfile] pathname
# The pidofproc function shall return one or more process
# identifiers for a particular daemon using the algorithm
# given above. Only process identifiers of running
# processes should be returned. Multiple process
# identifiers shall be separated by a single space.
# The pidofproc function shall return the LSB defined exit
# status codes for "status". It shall return 0 if the
# program is running and not 0 otherwise.
#
# If the status action is requested, the init script will return
# the following exit status codes.
# 0 program is running or service is OK
# 1 program is dead and /var/run pid file exists
# 2 program is dead and /var/lock lock file exists
# 3 program is not running
# 4 program or service status is unknown
# 5-99 reserved for future LSB use
# 100-149 reserved for distribution use
# 150-199 reserved for application use
# 200-254 reserved
function pidofproc {
local pidfile=""
local program=""
local pid=""
local pidlist=""
local list=""
local exitstatus=0
# Process arguments
while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
case "${1}" in
-p) shift; pidfile="${1}" ;;
*) program="${1##*/}" ;;
esac
shift
done
# If a PID file is not specified, make one
test -z "${pidfile}" && pidfile="/var/run/${program}.pid"
# If a pid file exists and is readable, use it.
if [[ -r "${pidfile}" ]]; then
list=$(head -n1 "${pidfile}")
else
list=$(pidof "${program}")
exitstatus=$?
if [[ ${exitstatus} -gt 0 ]]; then exitstatus=4; fi
fi
if [[ exitstatus -eq 0 ]]; then
# Figure out if all listed PIDs are running.
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null; then
pidlist+="${pid} "
else
exitstatus=1
fi
done
fi
if [[ -z "${pidlist}" ]]; then
if [[ -f "${pidfile}" ]]; then
exitstatus=1
else
exitstatus=3
fi
fi
printf "%s" "${pidlist% }"
return ${exitstatus}
}
Testing Function: pidofproc: Start
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, valid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd:
>:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid:
>:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: invalid program, no pidfile
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /usr/sbin/barf: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, invalid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p barf.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p barf.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program: valid pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 1
touch /var/run/ls.pid
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
pidofproc -p /var/run/ls.pid /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
rm /var/run/ls.pid
Looks great, tested it successfully with bash. Testing with busybox
ash does not work, but naturally, this is not needed on an LFS system.
This script is not intended to run with ash, the she bang line is as
follows
#!/bin/bash --posix
Fully agree.
I do have one question however:
Testing with invalid program and valid pidfile results in printing the
pid and returning 0:
Test with vaild program and valid pidfile:
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcd
3144root@keegan:~# echo $?
0
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcf
3144root@keeganecho $?
0
In the second case, /sbin/dhcpcf does not exist, but the pidfile does,
and belongs to /sbin/dhcpcd. Is this intended behaviour? Not that this
really matters a lot in real-world, as the function certainly will not
be called that way often.
It reads the pidfile and if the process is running with then
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null;then
pidlist+="${pid} "
else
exitstatus=1
Re: [lfs-support] init-functions: new pidofproc function: posix compliant: no sub shells: tested
On 4/9/21 2:10 AM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
Hi Scott
On 4/9/21 2:40 AM, Scott Andrews wrote:
# Function: pidofproc [-p pidfile] pathname
# The pidofproc function shall return one or more process
# identifiers for a particular daemon using the algorithm
# given above. Only process identifiers of running
# processes should be returned. Multiple process
# identifiers shall be separated by a single space.
# The pidofproc function shall return the LSB defined exit
# status codes for "status". It shall return 0 if the
# program is running and not 0 otherwise.
#
# If the status action is requested, the init script will return
# the following exit status codes.
# 0 program is running or service is OK
# 1 program is dead and /var/run pid file exists
# 2 program is dead and /var/lock lock file exists
# 3 program is not running
# 4 program or service status is unknown
# 5-99 reserved for future LSB use
# 100-149 reserved for distribution use
# 150-199 reserved for application use
# 200-254 reserved
function pidofproc {
local pidfile=""
local program=""
local pid=""
local pidlist=""
local list=""
local exitstatus=0
# Process arguments
while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
case "${1}" in
-p) shift; pidfile="${1}" ;;
*) program="${1##*/}" ;;
esac
shift
done
# If a PID file is not specified, make one
test -z "${pidfile}" && pidfile="/var/run/${program}.pid"
# If a pid file exists and is readable, use it.
if [[ -r "${pidfile}" ]]; then
list=$(head -n1 "${pidfile}")
else
list=$(pidof "${program}")
exitstatus=$?
if [[ ${exitstatus} -gt 0 ]]; then exitstatus=4; fi
fi
if [[ exitstatus -eq 0 ]]; then
# Figure out if all listed PIDs are running.
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null; then
pidlist+="${pid} "
else
exitstatus=1
fi
done
fi
if [[ -z "${pidlist}" ]]; then
if [[ -f "${pidfile}" ]]; then
exitstatus=1
else
exitstatus=3
fi
fi
printf "%s" "${pidlist% }"
return ${exitstatus}
}
Testing Function: pidofproc: Start
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, valid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd:
>:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid:
>:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: invalid program, no pidfile
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /usr/sbin/barf: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, invalid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p barf.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p barf.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program: valid pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 1
touch /var/run/ls.pid
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
pidofproc -p /var/run/ls.pid /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
rm /var/run/ls.pid
Looks great, tested it successfully with bash. Testing with busybox
ash does not work, but naturally, this is not needed on an LFS system.
This script is not intended to run with ash, the she bang line is as follows
#!/bin/bash --posix
I do have one question however:
Testing with invalid program and valid pidfile results in printing the
pid and returning 0:
Test with vaild program and valid pidfile:
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcd
3144root@keegan:~# echo $?
0
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcf
3144root@keeganecho $?
0
In the second case, /sbin/dhcpcf does not exist, but the pidfile does,
and belongs to /sbin/dhcpcd. Is this intended behaviour? Not that this
really matters a lot in real-world, as the function certainly will not
be called that way often.
It reads the pidfile and if the process is running with then
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null;then
pidlist+="${pid} "
else
exitstatus=1
fi
done
will return with an 0 exit status so yes it did
Re: [lfs-support] init-functions: new pidofproc function: posix compliant: no sub shells: tested
Hi Scott
On 4/9/21 2:40 AM, Scott Andrews wrote:
# Function: pidofproc [-p pidfile] pathname
# The pidofproc function shall return one or more process
# identifiers for a particular daemon using the algorithm
# given above. Only process identifiers of running
# processes should be returned. Multiple process
# identifiers shall be separated by a single space.
# The pidofproc function shall return the LSB defined exit
# status codes for "status". It shall return 0 if the
# program is running and not 0 otherwise.
#
# If the status action is requested, the init script will return
# the following exit status codes.
# 0 program is running or service is OK
# 1 program is dead and /var/run pid file exists
# 2 program is dead and /var/lock lock file exists
# 3 program is not running
# 4 program or service status is unknown
# 5-99 reserved for future LSB use
# 100-149 reserved for distribution use
# 150-199 reserved for application use
# 200-254 reserved
function pidofproc {
local pidfile=""
local program=""
local pid=""
local pidlist=""
local list=""
local exitstatus=0
# Process arguments
while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
case "${1}" in
-p) shift; pidfile="${1}" ;;
*) program="${1##*/}" ;;
esac
shift
done
# If a PID file is not specified, make one
test -z "${pidfile}" && pidfile="/var/run/${program}.pid"
# If a pid file exists and is readable, use it.
if [[ -r "${pidfile}" ]]; then
list=$(head -n1 "${pidfile}")
else
list=$(pidof "${program}")
exitstatus=$?
if [[ ${exitstatus} -gt 0 ]]; then exitstatus=4; fi
fi
if [[ exitstatus -eq 0 ]]; then
# Figure out if all listed PIDs are running.
for pid in ${list}; do
if kill -0 "${pid}" 2> /dev/null; then
pidlist+="${pid} "
else
exitstatus=1
fi
done
fi
if [[ -z "${pidlist}" ]]; then
if [[ -f "${pidfile}" ]]; then
exitstatus=1
else
exitstatus=3
fi
fi
printf "%s" "${pidlist% }"
return ${exitstatus}
}
Testing Function: pidofproc: Start
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, valid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >:pid:[472]
exit status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid: >:pid:[472]
exit status:[0]
pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid dhcpcd: >:pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc dhcpcd -p /var/run/dhcpcd.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: invalid program, no pidfile
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /usr/sbin/barf: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, invalid pidfile: running
Returns pid and exit status of 0
pidofproc -p barf.pid /usr/sbin/dhcpcd: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
pidofproc /usr/sbin/dhcpcd -p barf.pid: >: pid:[472] exit
status:[0]
Testing pidofproc: valid program, no pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 3
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[3]
Testing pidofproc: valid program: valid pidfile: not running
Returns no pid and exit status of 1
touch /var/run/ls.pid
pidofproc /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
pidofproc -p /var/run/ls.pid /bin/ls: >: pid:[] exit status:[1]
rm /var/run/ls.pid
Looks great, tested it successfully with bash. Testing with busybox ash
does not work, but naturally, this is not needed on an LFS system.
I do have one question however:
Testing with invalid program and valid pidfile results in printing the
pid and returning 0:
Test with vaild program and valid pidfile:
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcd
3144root@keegan:~# echo $?
0
root@keegan:~# ./pidofproc -p /var/run/dhcpcd-eno1.pid /sbin/dhcpcf
3144root@keeganecho $?
0
In the second case, /sbin/dhcpcf does not exist, but the pidfile does,
and belongs to /sbin/dhcpcd. Is this intended behaviour? Not that this
really matters a lot in real-world, as the function certainly will not
be called that way often.
Another minor question: What is the difference between
if [[ -r "${pidfile}" ]]; then
and
if [ -r "${pidfile}" ]; then
I always use the latter, you seem to prefer the first, is there a
difference I'm unaware of?
Bye
Tim
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the
