Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:38:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:37:52 -0500 Received: from mail-out.chello.nl ([213.46.240.7]:48702 "EHLO amsmta02-svc.chello.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:37:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:45:34 +0100 (CET) From: Igmar Palsenberg To: Stephen Harris cc: pollard@cats-chateau.net, vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl, Kernel devel list Subject: Re: syslog() blocks on glibc 2.1.3 with kernel 2.2.x In-Reply-To: <200010291718.RAA19325@spuddy.mew.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > It was NOT ignored. If syslogd dies, then the system SHOULD stop, after a > > Huh? "SHOULD"? Why? If syslog dies for any reason (bug, DOS, hack, > admin stupidity) then I sure don't want the system freezing up. In some cases, I find the syslog messages of more importance then a working system. I like to know what's going on on my machines. > ( heh... at work on Solaris I monitor 300+ systems, and it's not unusual > to find 1 box a week with syslog not running for some reason or another. > I can't decide whether it's admin stupidity or bugs in Solaris syslog - of > which there are many :-(( ) > > syslog is not meant to be a secure audit system. Messages can be > legitimately dropped. I find dropping messages unacceptable. > Applications have been coded assuming that they > will not be frozen in syslog(). Linux should not be different in this > respect. Hmm... it might be nice to be this a system tunable parameter > but I'm not sure the best way of doing that (glibc maybe?) I needs to be in glibc, yes. > > Stephen Harris Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/