[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more info about sudo/pflocal/syslogd problem
From: |
Marcus Brinkmann |
Subject: |
Re: more info about sudo/pflocal/syslogd problem |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:14:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.18i |
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 09:59:15PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I see. It might be telling to recode it using select and see if it behaves
> the same.
D'oh! We had it using select before, and rewrote syslogd to use poll().
I might be able to just use an old version of the code.
> Of course, it would be best if you could reproduce the situation
> with a simple test program (e.g. have a process that writes on a unix
> socket every few seconds, nothing writing on the inet socket, and a simple
> program that is just a select/poll loop reading from the ready sockets.)
You just described what syslogd --no-detach does. There is really nothing
else that happens. The process that writes something is logger. I just
need one write, it is entirely determinstic.
> At a quick glance, the code for both (hurdselect.c) looks the same to me,
> but I don't have time right now to examine it too thoroughly. If the
> problem with poll does not happen with select, then hurdselect.c is almost
> certainly the place that has the bug. If both behave the same, it is
> might be in the common code there, or it might be in pflocal.
Ah, I see. Maybe it is instructive to see what happens in pflocal, this
is simple enough to do.
Thanks,
Marcus
Re: more info about sudo/pflocal/syslogd problem, Roland McGrath, 2001/10/27