Nested runsvdir

[Jared Rhine]

Are there any known caveats to "nesting" runsvdir instances? I'm
having problems with signals and processes reparenting to init.

By nested I mean that an init-started "main" runsvdir has one service
which has a run script of:

-- begin --

#!/bin/sh

exec 2>&1

exec chpst -P -u monitor -e /var/di/monitor/runit/envdir runsvdir -P /var/di/monitor/runit/services 'log: ..........'

-- end --

(Yes, I am running the runsvdir -P patch recently sent by Gerrit; I
get the same behavior without the patch but I thought I should check
to see if it made a difference. I've tried various combinations of
pgrp switches without effect.) There are a couple of services defined
under /var/di/monitor/runit/services (call them "router" and
"archiver"). I can start/stop/manipulate these services fine using
runsvctrl.

But if I terminate the "parent" service (via runsvctrl down for
instance), the router and archiver runsv processes don't die; they
instead move to a parent pid of 1. I can then runsvctrl the router
and archiver services fine. But this is a bad situation to put the
server in and worse case (except I'm using chpst -L lockfiles), I get
multiple daemons running. I expect that killing the nested runsvdir
should kill all its child services.

runit is probably doing the expected thing given what I'm thrown at
it, but I don't know what misconfiguration I've done. I didn't think
this configuration would cause any unusual issues (Solaris 9/sparc) as
the mechanics of signals/waitpid/etc instead a "nested" runsvdir
should be about the same, right?

Suggestions or snippets of working "nested" runsvdir configurations
would be most appreciated.

-- ***@wordzoo.com

"A pessimist is one who has been intimately acquainted with an optimist."
-- Elbert Hubbard

[m***@mikebell.org]

Post by Jared Rhine
Are there any known caveats to "nesting" runsvdir instances? I'm
having problems with signals and processes reparenting to init.

Yeah, I also have these problems. Worked around by bringing down
the child runsvdir's stuff in stage 3 before bringing down the parent,
but there are still a few issues.

[Gerrit Pape]

Post by m***@mikebell.org

Post by Jared Rhine
Are there any known caveats to "nesting" runsvdir instances? I'm
having problems with signals and processes reparenting to init.

Yeah, I also have these problems. Worked around by bringing down
the child runsvdir's stuff in stage 3 before bringing down the parent,
but there are still a few issues.

Would you mind to tell us which ones?

Thanks, Gerrit.

[Gerrit Pape]

Post by Jared Rhine
Are there any known caveats to "nesting" runsvdir instances? I'm
having problems with signals and processes reparenting to init.
By nested I mean that an init-started "main" runsvdir has one service
-- begin --
#!/bin/sh
exec 2>&1
exec chpst -P -u monitor -e /var/di/monitor/runit/envdir runsvdir -P /var/di/monitor/runit/services 'log: ..........'
-- end --
I can start/stop/manipulate these services fine using
runsvctrl.
But if I terminate the "parent" service (via runsvctrl down for
instance), the router and archiver runsv processes don't die; they
instead move to a parent pid of 1. I can then runsvctrl the router
and archiver services fine. But this is a bad situation to put the
server in and worse case (except I'm using chpst -L lockfiles), I get
multiple daemons running. I expect that killing the nested runsvdir
should kill all its child services.
runit is probably doing the expected thing given what I'm thrown at

Yes, see section SIGNALS in runsvdir(8):
If runsvdir receives a TERM signal, it exits with 0 immediately.

If runsvdir receives a HUP signal, it sends a TERM signal to each
runsv(8) process it is monitoring and then exits with 111.

Post by Jared Rhine
Suggestions or snippets of working "nested" runsvdir configurations
would be most appreciated.

I suggest that you run svwaitdown -xk /var/di/monitor/runit/services/*
in the ./finish script of the runsvdir service, just as runit's stage 3
does for the main runsvdir process (stage 2) after it's terminated.
That should fix your problem.

Regards, Gerrit.