On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 08:41:40AM +0000, Jochen Bern wrote: > On 05/15/2019 12:22 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:29AM -0700, Eric Eberhard wrote: > >> That is not a bad idea. I'd wrap it in a C program so I could check > >> if the pppd is alive and not a zombie. > > > > pppd is a pretty solid piece of software. Never seen it hang as a > > zombie. > > A zombie process is *terminated* and, basically, just a remaining entry > in the kernel's process table. It's not hanging around because of > something its own code did wrong, but because its parent process fails > to "reap" its child (first and foremost, collect its exit code from the > kernel). Killing the parent cleans up zombies because the zombies get > re-parented to the init / systemd process (PID 1), which then does the > reaping.
The point is - if pppd is a real zombie everything is fine. As then all kernel resources have already been cleared away already - like interface and routes. And that (from my understanding) is the real problem. Starting a second pppd with the same static ip address for the peer. And what i meant is that the pppd state machine is pretty solid and clears away everything if the peer is detected dead for example with the lcp echo request/reply. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [email protected] UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ stunnel-users mailing list [email protected] https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
