Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
Eliezer Croitoru: On 07/03/2012 02:33, Wietse Venema wrote: Eliezer Croitoru: i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log. Sorry, only the master daemon knows that it can't access the IP address. ok but it wont stop using postfix stop When the master daemon is not running: # postfix stop postfix/postfix-script: fatal: the Postfix mail system is not running What result did you expect? Wietse
[OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
On 03/06/12 14:10, Wietse Venema wrote: Eray Aslan: On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:48:35AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: I think that making everyone wait would be another example of well-meaning people doing things that give Postfix a bad reputation. postfix start exits successfully but postfix doesn't work, resulting in a WTF moment for the user. I am not sure if this is a recommended way to start a daemon. It surprises them - hence the original email. According to the original complaint, no error was logged, and the system claimed that the mail system was running. If they had looked in the right logfile, and if they had used the postfix status command, all this WTF would have been unnecessary. They also claimed they had to to reboot their system to clear up the problem. All this indicates that they have no clue. Going for the lowest common denominator is not sufficient moditivation to make changes that cause everyone else to suffer. It's not really his fault. This is what the startup message looks like: backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ ok ] If postfix has failed to actually start, you get the same message. Moreover, backup2 ~ # killall -9 /usr/lib64/postfix/master backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * WARNING: postfix has already been started backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix status * status: started This is not ideal, but I wouldn't say it should necessarily be fixed, either. Right now the problem is easy to understand: half of the time on Gentoo, the startup OK is meaningless. Everyone knows this, and figures out how to deal with it quickly: backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix stop * Stopping postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ !! ] * ERROR: postfix failed to stop backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix zap * Manually resetting postfix to stopped state backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ ok ] If we try to fix it with magic (e.g. wrapping 'postfix status'), a) We require more developer time b) Some easy failure modes get nicer c) Many tricky failures get worse So the benefit is not clear-cut.
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
Michael Orlitzky: backup2 ~ # killall -9 /usr/lib64/postfix/master backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * WARNING: postfix has already been started That is a bug in an init script, and is the responsibility of the OS-specific maintainer. Postfix does not provide init/upstart/systemd/launchpad/whatever scripts. Wietse
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:30:59PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: either. Right now the problem is easy to understand: half of the time on Gentoo, the startup OK is meaningless. Everyone knows this, and figures out how to deal with it quickly: backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix stop * Stopping postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ !! ] * ERROR: postfix failed to stop You get this error because your system thinks postfix is running because the init script exited successfully because postfix start exited successfully (but postfix bailed out with wrong configuration). With postfix status check added, the init script, hence your system, would work as expected and you won't be getting the above or similar errors, i.e. there would be no need for the zap start workaround. Downside: It would take ~1sec more to start up postfix *for everyone* - one has to wait a bit before running postfix status after postfix start. So, yes it is not a clear cut decision but for different reasons. This is getting really off topic. -- Eray Aslan
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
Eray Aslan: On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:30:59PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: either. Right now the problem is easy to understand: half of the time on Gentoo, the startup OK is meaningless. Everyone knows this, and figures out how to deal with it quickly: backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix stop * Stopping postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ !! ] * ERROR: postfix failed to stop You get this error because your system thinks postfix is running because the init script exited successfully because postfix start exited successfully (but postfix bailed out with wrong configuration). With postfix status check added, the init script, hence your system, would work as expected and you won't be getting the above or similar errors, i.e. there would be no need for the zap start workaround. Downside: It would take ~1sec more to start up postfix *for everyone* - one has to wait a bit before running postfix status after postfix start. So you need a way for postfix start that returns status 0 if the master(8) daemon initalizes successfully, and non-zero otherwise. I think this can be done by starting the master as a foreground process. The foreground master forks a child process that will become the master daemon that runs as a background process. The foreground master process waits for the all is OK signal from the child process. When that happens, the foreground process terminates with a 0 status, causing postfix start to return a 0 status. This will normally take a fraction of a second. In case of problems (no response from child, child terminates) the foreground process terminates with non-zero status, and postfix start reports an error, and returns a non-zero exit status. Will that work? Wietse
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:01:47PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: So you need a way for postfix start that returns status 0 if the master(8) daemon initalizes successfully, and non-zero otherwise. Correct. I think this can be done by starting the master as a foreground process. The foreground master forks a child process that will become the master daemon that runs as a background process. The foreground master process waits for the all is OK signal from the child process. When that happens, the foreground process terminates with a 0 status, causing postfix start to return a 0 status. This will normally take a fraction of a second. In case of problems (no response from child, child terminates) the foreground process terminates with non-zero status, and postfix start reports an error, and returns a non-zero exit status. Will that work? Yes, that will work. Thank you. -- Eray Aslan
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
On 06/03/2012 21:30, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 03/06/12 14:10, Wietse Venema wrote: Eray Aslan: On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:48:35AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: I think that making everyone wait would be another example of well-meaning people doing things that give Postfix a bad reputation. postfix start exits successfully but postfix doesn't work, resulting in a WTF moment for the user. I am not sure if this is a recommended way to start a daemon. It surprises them - hence the original email. According to the original complaint, no error was logged, and the system claimed that the mail system was running. If they had looked in the right logfile, and if they had used the postfix status command, all this WTF would have been unnecessary. They also claimed they had to to reboot their system to clear up the problem. All this indicates that they have no clue. Going for the lowest common denominator is not sufficient moditivation to make changes that cause everyone else to suffer. It's not really his fault. This is what the startup message looks like: backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ ok ] If postfix has failed to actually start, you get the same message. Moreover, backup2 ~ # killall -9 /usr/lib64/postfix/master backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * WARNING: postfix has already been started backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix status * status: started This is not ideal, but I wouldn't say it should necessarily be fixed, either. Right now the problem is easy to understand: half of the time on Gentoo, the startup OK is meaningless. Everyone knows this, and figures out how to deal with it quickly: backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix stop * Stopping postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ !! ] * ERROR: postfix failed to stop backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix zap * Manually resetting postfix to stopped state backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start * Starting postfix (/etc/postfix)... [ ok ] If we try to fix it with magic (e.g. wrapping 'postfix status'), a) We require more developer time b) Some easy failure modes get nicer c) Many tricky failures get worse i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log. by writing the bug i do hope this simple guy that will look for the problem will understand what could he missed. Thanks, Eliezer So the benefit is not clear-cut.
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
Eliezer Croitoru: i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log. Sorry, only the master daemon knows that it can't access the IP address. To find out if Postfix runs, use postfix status. Don't use the crap scripts from Linux maintainers. To find out why Postfix does not run , read the logfile. Wietse
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
On 07/03/2012 02:33, Wietse Venema wrote: Eliezer Croitoru: i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log. Sorry, only the master daemon knows that it can't access the IP address. ok but it wont stop using postfix stop Eliezer To find out if Postfix runs, use postfix status. Don't use the crap scripts from Linux maintainers. To find out why Postfix does not run , read the logfile. Wietse
Re: [OT] Re: found a bug on postfix 2.9.1
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:01:47PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: So you need a way for postfix start that returns status 0 if the master(8) daemon initalizes successfully, and non-zero otherwise. I think this can be done by starting the master as a foreground process. The foreground master forks a child process that will become the master daemon that runs as a background process. The foreground master process waits for the all is OK signal from the child process. When that happens, the foreground process terminates with a 0 status, causing postfix start to return a 0 status. This will normally take a fraction of a second. In case of problems (no response from child, child terminates) the foreground process terminates with non-zero status, and postfix start reports an error, and returns a non-zero exit status. Will that work? It'll could be an inconvenience for the folks at Apple, who start master(8) directly via launchd. However, since they've made no attempt to have their patches adopted, ... it is hard to take their interests into account. Probably provided master -d continues to run in the foreground, their stuff will not break in new ways. :-) -- Viktor.
