Hi all,

Do you know how to activate squidguard logs ?. On a "per blacklist basis" ?,
i.e one log file for porn another for gambling etc etc ???

(I don't wanna use RPMs ).

Another question, is it possible to authenticate on a AD or a lotus notes
ldap via squid and do a "per group" filtering policy ?.

/Hitete


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:59 AM
Subject: SquidGuard and HUP


> Hello SquidGuard List,
>
> I'm new to the list and squidguard, so please excuse me if I ask some
newbie
> questions... :)
>
> I am running squid with a number of squidguard subprocesses, and a number
of
> auth processes. These auth processes take a large time to reload, and put
the
> system under pressure when they do.
>
> Every now and then I want to make alterations to the squidguard.conf, or
add
> or remove a user from a external user list. At the moment I am restarting
> squid to get squidguard to reload its configuration. I have since
descovered
> that sending squid a HUP using 'kill -HUP' forces squid to reload it's
config
> and it's redirector and auth children, but this means that my auth
processes
> restart as well.
>
> I noticed on the squidguard website it mentions: "Currently a squidGuard
> process will reincarnate on a HUP signal directly to the squidGuard
process
> -- if at all possible (i.e. execvp() and replace itself with a fresh
> squidGuard process with the same command line arguments). Thus if you
suspect
> a squidGuard process has gone mad, you don't necessarily need to
reconfigure
> Squid; a "kill -HUP that_squidGuard_pid" will probably do"
>
> However, a 'killall -HUP squidGuard' causes my squidguard processes to
die, if
> I do it a few more times then squid itself will shutdown.
>
> I get the following in my squid cache.log:
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:39:40| WARNING: redirector #4 (FD 31) exited
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:39:40| WARNING: redirector #5 (FD 32) exited
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:41:16| WARNING: redirector #1 (FD 11) exited
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:41:17| WARNING: redirector #2 (FD 26) exited
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:41:17| WARNING: redirector #3 (FD 27) exited
> 2004/09/17 14:41:17| Too few redirector processes are running2004/09/17
> 14:41:17| Starting new helpers
> 2004/09/17 14:41:17| helperOpenServers: Starting 5 'squidGuard' processes
>
> and a bit later (if I send another HUP):
>
> 2004/09/17 14:43:11| WARNING: redirector #1 (FD 7) exited
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:43:11| WARNING: redirector #2 (FD 8) exited
> error execve: 2
> 2004/09/17 14:43:12| WARNING: redirector #3 (FD 9) exited
> 2004/09/17 14:43:12| Too few redirector processes are running2004/09/17
> 14:43:12| storeDirWriteCleanLogs: Starting...
> 2004/09/17 14:43:12| WARNING: Closing open FD    6
> 2004/09/17 14:43:12| WARNING: Closing open FD   20
> 2004/09/17 14:43:12|   Finished.  Wrote 8582 entries.
> 2004/09/17 14:43:12|   Took 0.0 seconds (2193202.1 entries/sec).
> FATAL: The redirector helpers are crashing too rapidly, need help!
>
> Squid Cache (Version 2.5.STABLE5): Terminated abnormally.
>
> In my squidguard.log, I get the following:
>
> 2004-09-17 14:49:52 [19638] got sigHUP reload config
> 2004-09-17 14:49:52 [19639] got sigHUP reload config
> 2004-09-17 14:49:53 [19640] got sigHUP reload config
> 2004-09-17 14:49:53 [19641] got sigHUP reload config
> 2004-09-17 14:49:53 [19642] got sigHUP reload config
>
> But the squidguard processes must be crashing, because squid only reloads
them
> when a request comes through (and the redirector fails until they come
> online).
>
> >From what I can gather, when the squidgard processes recieve a HUP, they
> attempt to reload using execvp(), but crash. Is there a better way that I
can
> force a squidguard reload (eg with the -u command line option)? Or is
there a
> fix I can apply to squidguard to stop it crashing on a HUP?
>
> I am using squid-2.5.STABLE5-1 and squidGuard-1.2.0 on a Redhat Enterprise
> Linux server.
>
> Thanks for any help you can give,
>
> Matthew Smith
>

Reply via email to