Re: runit SIGPWR support

From: Jeff <sysinit_at_yandex.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:38:38 +0100

12.02.2020, 22:54, "Colin Booth" <colin_at_heliocat.net>:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:56PM +0300, innerspacepilot wrote:
>>  Why not just make runit systems run inside containers out of the box?
>>  We are talking about one/two lines of code.

you should patch the code, runit is dead anyway.
try something along this lines in the source:

#ifdef SIGPWR
  /* handle that one */
  ...
#endif

i can't see the problem, you have to patch the runit sources to
fulfil your requirements since that project is dead and the code
is not maintained anymore.

>>  Why can't we be just a little bit more friendly to each other?

that would be indeed helpful.

> I wasn't trying to be hostile, apologies if it came across that way. As
> far as I know SIGPWR is a Linux-specific signal so services that are
> aiming for portability will either need to have special handling for
> that in the linux case or need to ignore it. Ergo, runit (and all other
> POSIX-compliant inits) currently have no special handling around SIGPWR
> as they don't understand what it is.
>
> Is this the right behavior? I don't know. Something like SIGPWR as an
> alerting mechanism when you're switched to UPS battery is pretty nice in
> a general case but using that as your container shutdown solution
> isolates you into a very SysV-specific world. Overriding the default via
> lxc.signal.halt will allow you to modify what you send to something that
> is within the POSIX spec and allow you to trigger shutdowns the "right"
> way. It's a little lame but it is portable, and LXC using a non-portable
> signal is a little bit of a bummer.

just BS. adding a bit of handler code for SIGPWR is no big deal,
please stop your lamento, it's so boring.
Received on Fri Feb 14 2020 - 09:38:38 UTC