|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

How implementation details become ABI: a case study

How implementation details become ABI: a case study

Posted Oct 5, 2014 11:10 UTC (Sun) by JGR (subscriber, #93631)
In reply to: How implementation details become ABI: a case study by viro
Parent article: How implementation details become ABI: a case study

Presumably a daemon designed to be upgraded whilst running in this way would load configuration and other files at startup or on HUP specifically to avoid these issues.

Stopping the daemon, upgrading, then restarting it introduces a small period of downtime, which can be undesirable.

to post comments

How implementation details become ABI: a case study

Posted Oct 5, 2014 16:08 UTC (Sun) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]

As I said, something more fancy shouldn't be using start-stop-daemon in the first place. I really wonder how many common daemons take care about the races around the upgrade; stop/move new one in place/start is more robust...
It's not just config; anything from helper binaries to permissions on directories, etc. can become a surprise for old daemon binary.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds