svn commit: r331880 - stable/11/etc

[Kyle Evans]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Rodney W. Grimes
<freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rodney W. Grimes
>> <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Rodney W. Grimes
>> >> <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 04/02/18 17:39, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> >> >> >> Author: kevans
>> >> >> >> Date: Mon Apr  2 15:28:48 2018
>> >> >> >> New Revision: 331880
>> >> >> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/331880
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Log:
>> >> >> >>    MFC r328331: Support configuring arbitrary limits(1) for any rc.conf daemon
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>    Usage is ${name}_limits, and the argument is any flags accepted by
>> >> >> >>    limits(1), such as `-n 100' (e.g. only allow 100 open files).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Modified:
>> >> >> >>    stable/11/etc/rc.subr
>> >> >> >> Directory Properties:
>> >> >> >>    stable/11/   (props changed)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Modified: stable/11/etc/rc.subr
>> >> >> >> ==============================================================================
>> >> >> >> --- stable/11/etc/rc.subr  Mon Apr  2 15:07:41 2018        (r331879)
>> >> >> >> +++ stable/11/etc/rc.subr  Mon Apr  2 15:28:48 2018        (r331880)
>> >> >> >> @@ -773,6 +773,8 @@ check_startmsgs()
>> >> >> >>   #
>> >> >> >>   #        ${name}_login_class n   Login class to use, else "daemon".
>> >> >> >>   #
>> >> >> >> +# ${name}_limits  n       limits(1) to apply to ${command}.
>> >> >> >> +#
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Caution, limits(1) is in /usr/bin, this code can fail if used before
>> >> >> > /usr is mounted.  (Ie, our rc.initdiskless) is probably broken by
>> >> >> > this change if a call is made to limits.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry for jumping on this so late.  This is also an issue in CURRENT,
>> >> >> and has been since at least 2016.
>> >> >
>> >> > I was aware that it was an issue and why I made a comment about it
>> >> > being MFC'ed.  Though I had forgot a bug report existed.
>> >>
>> >> I'm kind of surprised we haven't had more complaints about this- the
>> >> original commit for this stuff landed before stable/11 was even
>> >> branched, so it's been broken for all of 11.x's lifetime.
>> >
>> > History has taught me it takes a long time for this type of
>> > breakage to usually surface in a noticable way.  Also I think
>> > until you merged this last ${name}_limits thing it actually
>> > didn't cause an issue, except for the few like me running
>> > diskless systems and or seperate /usr.
>>
>> I don't see how this merge could possibly have been the cause of any
>> claimed issues- like I said before, it didn't add any limits
>> invocations, it added an arg to the limits invocation that already
>> existed. You can see this pretty clearly from the diff, we didn't even
>> change any conditions for limits to be invoked.
>
> limits_mysql="NO" is defined by the startup script for mysql,
> that now causes /etc/rc to try and use that variable in a
> different way.
>
> You added a variable, one that was already in use by some other
> /etc/rc* related component.  Collision of differening uses is
> causing errors.
>

Ah, apologies, I misread your previous e-mail and had interpreted it
as you claiming again that this broke things for those of you "running
diskless systems and or seperate /usr." -- this other breakage, these
are things we can fix and aren't really large hurdles to climb over.

We just need people like 0mp that are actually inclined to address it
in ports, and we need to actually communicate changes like this with
ports people and assess what's going to break and make a plan to get
it fixed.

IMO this in particular wasn't a major change, and it shouldn't have
been too big of a deal (unlike the commit that it built upon). I don't
think it should've been broken in head for two months in the various
ports that 0mp has identified- even if people don't run these
databases on head, we should've assessed the fallout and fixed it
somewhere in the two month's time. We're not talking half the ports
tree, we're talking < 30 ports. =(