On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 11:13:22PM +0200, Sergio Gelato wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:51:12 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > >> > >> Here are some relevant logs about the incident, lightly sanitised: > >> > >> Jun 7 08:17:18 <HOST> dhclient: DHCPACK from <SERVERIP> > >> Jun 7 08:17:18 <HOST> ntpd[1576]: ntpd exiting on signal 15 > >> Jun 7 08:17:20 <HOST> ntpd[1904]: ntpd 4.2.6p2@1.2194-o Sun Oct 17 > >> 13:35:13 UTC 2010 (1) > >> Jun 7 08:17:20 <HOST> ntpd[1905]: ntpd 4.2.6p2@1.2194-o Sun Oct 17 > >> 13:35:13 UTC 2010 (1) > > > > So you're starting it twice at the same time? Of course there is > > no PID file yet at the time the 2nd gets started. > > A race, as I said. And the problem isn't so much that multiple instances > get started at the same time
I would call this a bug somewhere that causes a race condition somewhere else. There really is no excuse for starting ntpd twice at the same time. That of course doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with writing a pid file and then die (and not clean up that pid file.) > > Looking at the init script, "status" doesn't use the pid file > > currently. > > I beg to differ. It calls status_of_proc, which is defined in > /lib/lsb/init-functions. status_of_proc in turn calls pidofproc, which has > if [ ! "$specified" ]; then > pidfile="/var/run/$base.pid" > fi I guess I didn't look hard enough, and that's a little unexpected behaviour for me. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
