[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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 *

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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 +++

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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:

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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 ___

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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,

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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,

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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: > > >

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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 --

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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.

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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. >

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

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