[distcc] Problem with zeroconf daemonization
Benjamin R. Haskell
distcc at benizi.com
Mon Jan 18 22:40:35 MST 2010
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Ihar `Philips` Filipau wrote:
> Well, you can't satisfy all. And the problem (in the particular case)
> isn't even performance critical: everything what would do the work in
> less than half second is OK. Most fool-proof solution wins.
But that's contradictory: most fool-proof is looping over all possible
values for fd, but on many systems thats >> 5sec. (10billion on mine =
> > > Either way, though, there seems to be agreement that this is a
> > > 'distcc' problem and not a 'paludis' problem?
> > [still interested in the consensus here]
> IMO. Implement fool-prof generic method. Add /proc/*/fd trick for
> Linux (as most commonly used platform).
Sounds like the plan.
> Code from Lennart's hint satisfies most of the requirements.
> closefrom() syscall: let somebody else who has access to the
> supporting platform add a new define and code path for it. Ditto
Also sounds reasonable.
> I'm no distcc maintainer, but IMHO there is no need consensus here for
> a pure technical question on how to close fds. Do not plan for
> problem - solve the problems as they come. Especially considering that
> in the case they are going to be easy to solve.
Sorry, I think my referent got lost... I meant consensus on the fact
that this is distcc's problem (closing fd's it didn't open), and not
paludis's problem. (Seems like people agree it's fixable easily-enough
in distcc, but I wasn't sure if this was usually considered a problem
that the daemonizing process was responsible for.)
More information about the distcc