[SSSD] [PATCHES] Sig handlers cleanups

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Tue Nov 12 10:32:40 UTC 2013


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:45:48AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:27:48AM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:37:39PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:33 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:56:12AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 09:20 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 04:26:36PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > > > > While checking if our custom signal handlers properly handle errno, I
> > > > > > > > stumbled on a few cleanups, they are attached.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > turns out our few signal hanlders are errno safe, and tevent signal
> > > > > > > > handling function is also fine.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Simo.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > From 8244f7619c5042dc45751ce3bbff75f2dbc03e05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > > > From: Simo Sorce <simo at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:11:04 -0500
> > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Signals: Remove empty sig_hup
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > SIGHUP handling is simply not implemented, so just block the signal instead of
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > it is, see te_server_hup() and the usage is documented in the sssd man
> > > > > > > page.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > using a fake handler.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok does it mean I need to remove the part where I block the signal ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > no, but you have to unblock it in server_setup() and if it is harmless
> > > > > to unblock a signal twice I would unblock it in monitor_process_init()
> > > > > before calling tevent_add_signal() as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you have any other comment ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > no, but I still need to test them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The sig_hup(int sig) function *was* useless ? Or is it there as a place
> > > > > > holder until te_server_hup() takes over ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > no, I think the common patter here is to block everything in
> > > > > setup_signals() and then unblock the signal when the related
> > > > > tevent_add_signal() is called.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok after looking more carefully at how we setup the tevent handlers for
> > > > SIGHUP I just reverted the part of the patch that would block the
> > > > signal, it makes no sense to block it just to revert the action a few
> > > > microseconds later.
> > > > 
> > > > New patch 0002 attached.
> > > 
> > > Thank you. With this patch SSSD receives and handles all documented
> > > signals.
> > > 
> > > ACK
> > > 
> > > While testing I came across an oddness which we might want to fix. The
> > > sssd_be processes can receive SIGUSR1 individually and go offline. But
> > > the SIGUSR2 is not handled by sssd_be directly but only by the monitor
> > > which then send a reset offline request to all backends. Shall sssd_be
> > > handle SIGUSR2 as well?
> > > 
> > > bye,
> > > Sumit
> > 
> > Which patches should be pushed? #1 and #3 from the original mail and #2
> > from the follow up?
> 
> yes
> 
> bye,
> Sumit

OK, pushed those three to master.



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list