|
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:50:53AM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've cc'd Horms, since that's the way to get his attention regarding
> ldirectord
> patches. He's insanely busy, so you need some patience.
>
>
> >ldirectord (version 1.186/1.42) does not seem to handle reloads
> >correctly. After reload, some parameters for virtual server in its
> >hash are left uninitialized (e.g. $$v{proto}). As the result, service
> >checking does not work correctly any more and ldirectord is attempting
> >to run ipvsadm with invalid list of arguments.
>
> Does this happen in case the:
>
> 1. old configuration == new configuration?
> 2. old configuration contains more VIPs or RIPs than new configuration?
> 3. old configuration contains less VIPs or RIPs than new configuration?
> 4. old configuration is almost completely different compared to new
> configuration?
>
> >Missing parameters are normally initialized in ld_setup function.
> >This function is not called during reload. Adding ld_setup call to
> >reread_config seems to fix the issue. Possible fix:
> >--- /usr/sbin/ldirectord.orig 2007-02-12 23:06:29.000000000 +0100
> >+++ /usr/sbin/ldirectord 2007-03-14 12:08:36.000000000 +0100
> >@@ -917,6 +917,8 @@
> > &ld_cmd_children("stop", %STOP);
> > &ld_cmd_children("reload_or_start", %RELOAD);
> > &ld_cmd_children("start", %START);
> >+
> >+ &ld_setup();
> > };
> > if ($@) {
> > @VIRTUAL = @OLDVIRTUAL;
> >Can anyone more familiar with ldirectord internals review such fix and
> >point out potential problems?
>
> I'm not very familiar with ldirectord, although I've dug through it in
> the past. However, your fix seems appropriate. Nevertheless, I find it
> somewhat interesting that you're the first one hitting this issue, as
> if noone ever reloaded ldirectord :). It's clear that when reloading
> (sending SIGHUP to the $PID) ld_setup() is not explicitly called
> anymore.
>
> Is your old $PID available when this happens? Could it be a signaling
> issue? Can you also check the pending signals with ps as when it
> comes to a reload and your problem is exhibited? I'm just asking
> because there is a lot of potentially CPU-intensive stuff being
> processed during the SIGHUP interrupt handler in ldirectord. Otherwise
> I'd say that your patch look sane.
I think that the patch looks sane too. But I am also quite surprised
as I have tested the reload behaviour myself on several occasions.
I guess something slipped through the cracks, but Thomas,
would it be possible for you to provide a test case?
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
|
