[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel 2.2.1 and sysvinit 2.76 possible bug
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Alan Cox wrote:

> > 2.2 introduces a "feature" which causes the kernel to reboot if init
> > dies for any reason, so it is more likely that sysvinit could be the
> > culprit. However, I agree with you; this is a kernel bug and should
> > be fixed.
> Its not a bug. If init dies the machine is in deep crap. Init should not
> die. If init dies something very bad has occured. Simply carrying on with
> no pid 1 to reap processes wont work very well

I see. So tanking the whole unit is better. That way, if no one is
around, they won't even notice there is a problem (unless they check uptime
and/or read their logs carefully). Step back for a moment and think of it
this way: is it the kernel's responsibility to decide what is best for the
user WRT user-space? Sounds more like some operating systems we don't like
to emulate very much. ;)

Seriously, I agree that losing init is going to cause Big Grief, and is an
unrecoverable situation. But perhaps the user wishes to preserve some
flexibility as to how to proceed in this dire situation (ie. an opportunity
to carry out some other task perhaps, before cycling). I would suggest
that the behavior on loss of init be a toggleable /proc/sys/kernel switch.

B. James Phillippe .
Software Engineer, WGT Inc. .

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.087 / U:3.976 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site