On 2015-12-26 17:11, Guillermo wrote:
> I guess that for a short window of time, processes that send their
> logs to the catch-all logger could potentially receive a SIGPIPE,
> right?
Yes, if they fail to ignore SIGPIPE, but most long-lived processes
rightfully ignore it. Most likely, a write() would fail with -1 EPIPE.
> But would the
> failing write operations to the logger's FIFO make this a (transient)
> situation where logs could be lost?
Yes, it would indeed.
The solution is to open the named pipe for reading and store the fd
into a fd-holder. But it's something for an admin or a distrib to do,
it's outside the scope of s6, s6-linux-init or even s6-rc (though I
could update the s6-rc example database so it includes that).
--
Laurent
Received on Sat Dec 26 2015 - 17:10:48 UTC