Hey!
On 7/28/22 7:15 AM, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
On 27 Jul 2022, at 13:24, Steve Dickson wrote:
From: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
When `systemctl stop rpcbind.socket` is run, the dependency means
that systemd first sends SIGTERM to rpcbind, then sigterm to rpc.statd.
On SIGTERM, rpcbind tears down /var/run/rpcbind.sock. However,
rpc-statd on SIGTERM attempts to unregister from rpcbind
systemd needs to wait for rpc.statd to exit before sending
SIGTERM to rpcbind
Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2100395
Signed-off-by: Steve Dickson <steved@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
systemd/rpc-statd.service | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/systemd/rpc-statd.service b/systemd/rpc-statd.service
index 095629f2..392750da 100644
--- a/systemd/rpc-statd.service
+++ b/systemd/rpc-statd.service
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Conflicts=umount.target
Requires=nss-lookup.target rpcbind.socket
Wants=network-online.target
Wants=rpc-statd-notify.service
-After=network-online.target nss-lookup.target rpcbind.socket
+After=network-online.target nss-lookup.target rpcbind.service
PartOf=nfs-utils.service
IgnoreOnIsolate=yes
--
2.34.1
Hey Steve - thanks for patchifying this - I should have sent a proper
patch, but the reason I didn't is that I didn't understand why we have the
rpcbind.socket unit, and why that unit isn't sufficient to enforce the
ordering.
The whole idea be the rpcbind.socket unit was the Fedora or systemd
people did not want daemons running when the are not needed.
So they came up with "on-demand" daemons, meaning a daemon
would be started when a process connect to the socket.
I don't remember the history. Will changing the After= here create a
problem where rpcbind.service is up, but the socket isn't there yet, and
then rpc.statd comes up and can't find the socket?
I don't think so... That After= line, in rpc-statd.service,
was a result of a bug fix I did for bz1419351 (commit 09e5c6c2a3).
Why I used rpcbind.socket instead of rpcbind.service is not
clear, since rpcbind.service Requires rpcbind.socket.
So I'm thinking this is a valid bug fix... Thanks
for doing the debugging!!!
steved.
