URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
master:
* e6a5f8c58539fc31fd81fac89cfc85703b4250ea
* 087162b85e191af51637904702813969b35eaadc
sssd-1-14:
* 0606a71b698c4acf954ba7284e62acbd0aa5e52d
* 442
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
To me as well. I tested again the watchdog restart and the timeshift and both
cases work fine.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
pbrezina commented:
"""
Looks good to me.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-271574259
_
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Patchset updated!
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-271558289
_
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
Are there any objection to the proposed change?
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-271523691
___
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
I checked the man page and API on linux and BSD and setpgrp has a different API
on these platforms.
But there is similar function which do the same and h
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
New version of the series has been pushed and attend both Pavel and Lukáš
comments.
As mentioned in the first patch this series will only work with SELi
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
On (05/01/17 04:52), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>btw now I'm wondering if the setpgrp should be a separate patch also for
>stable branches because I guess the b
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:03 PM, lslebodn wrote:
> On (05/01/17 04:52), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >btw now I'm wondering if the setpgrp should be a separate
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
On (05/01/17 04:52), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>btw now I'm wondering if the setpgrp should be a separate patch also for
>stable branches because I guess the b
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
btw now I'm wondering if the setpgrp should be a separate patch also for stable
branches because I guess the bug was present in sssd for quite a long time
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
On (03/01/17 06:41), fidencio wrote:
>Argh, and also:
>```
>diff --git a/src/util/util_watchdog.c b/src/util/util_watchdog.c
>index 17954d1..77ba705 10064
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
ACK
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-270630387
___
sssd-devel m
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Hmm. I really didn't notice it before but you're right.
It ends up killing all explicitly started responders on my setup. Sorry for not
having it tested
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
hmm, it seems I was wrong and at least with systemd (is that the difference?)
when we kill the whole process group also the nss and pam responders (that w
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Argh, and also:
```
diff --git a/src/util/util_watchdog.c b/src/util/util_watchdog.c
index 17954d1..77ba705 100644
--- a/src/util/util_watchdog.c
+++ b/sr
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Here is the diff between the older version and the one about to be pushed:
```
[ffidenci@cat sssd]$ git diff
diff --git a/src/util/util_watchdog.c b/src/u
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
On (02/01/17 06:15), fidencio wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:35 AM, lslebodn wrote:
>
>> retest this please
>>
>
>Is this comment for the author of the
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:35 AM, lslebodn wrote:
> retest this please
>
Is this comment for the author of the patch or is this comment for the
reviewer
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
retest this please
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-269941038
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Not sure why CentOS CI failed.
Internal CI has passed in the most of the supported distros and the failures
doesn't seem related to this patch:
http://s
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Okay, patch has been updated.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-268503583
_
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
Hmm, I'm sorry, I think this is my fault for suggesting we move more stuff out
of the POSIX signal handler, but I don't think we can remove the watchdog
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
CI: http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/59/63/summary.html
Rawhide failure is unrelated.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/1
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Patch updated according to Simo's suggestion.
Removing the label "Changes requested" as it's done for review.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
I just set the Changes Requested label so that it's clear to reviewers new
patch set is coming up..
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
pbrezina commented:
"""
Sounds good.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107#issuecomment-267003707
___
ss
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 08:02 -0800, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:06:58AM
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
simo5 commented:
"""
On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 08:02 -0800, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:06:58AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 05:59 -0800, J
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:06:58AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 05:59 -0800, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:44:44AM
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
simo5 commented:
"""
On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 05:59 -0800, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:44:44AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 02:25 -0800, f
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:44:44AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 02:25 -0800, fidencio wrote:
> > Pavel,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 a
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
simo5 commented:
"""
On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 02:25 -0800, fidencio wrote:
> Pavel,
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Pavel Březina
> wrote:
>
> > There are two scenarios:
>
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
Pavel,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Pavel Březina
wrote:
> There are two scenarios:
>
>1. timeshift during system boot -- it is very common to
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
pbrezina commented:
"""
There are two scenarios:
1) timeshift during system boot -- it is very common to be several hours
2) timeshift due to an ntp update when booted up -- usua
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 07:30:30AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> well you could have a globalk variable for the watchdog and change it from a
> custom signal
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
simo5 commented:
"""
well you could have a globalk variable for the watchdog and change it from a
custom signal handler, but the point of the watchdog is to go thorugh the
teve
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 06:55:13AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Yes we should ask, I think we really need to try to use monotonic clocks for
> most tasks.
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
simo5 commented:
"""
Yes we should ask, I think we really need to try to use monotonic clocks for
most tasks.
"""
See the full comment at
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
I'm not sure I like the idea of killing a service because the admin runs
ntpdate, even if the monitor should restart the service. @simo5 do you have a
pr
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jakub Hrozek
wrote:
> So..I wonder how much of a hack this is but if the intent here is to reset
> the watchdog from a
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
jhrozek commented:
"""
So..I wonder how much of a hack this is but if the intent here is to reset the
watchdog from a signal handler, could we send a signal to self (`kill(getpi
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Pavel Březina
wrote:
> *@pbrezina* commented on this pull request.
> --
>
> In src/util/uti
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
fidencio commented:
"""
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, lslebodn wrote:
> On (12/12/16 01:20), fidencio wrote:
> >While debugging rhbz#1396912 some deadlock on sssd_be was not
URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107
Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler
lslebodn commented:
"""
On (12/12/16 01:20), fidencio wrote:
>While debugging rhbz#1396912 some deadlock on sssd_be was noticed[0] and
>it's been caused by the use of non async-s
45 matches
Mail list logo
