Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 440658
rc.d/init.d/functions:status() should consider pid files before pidof
Last modified: 2009-09-02 07:14:19 EDT
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #433018 +++
Description of problem:
The status() function from rc.d/init.d/functions uses pidof to locate pids
before considering pid files. A service that uses pid files will not have them
considered, except for the pid dead but pid file exists case, and pids of
processes with the same name as the service may be incorrectly associated with
This can result in issues during "service X start" when the init script for X
written to be LSB-ish compliant (only start if not running) and it uses
to determine if the service is running.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
At least version initscripts 8.60-1 and 8.63-1
A proposed solution is attached as a patch to initscripts-8.63. It changes the
logic of status() to consider pid files only if one is available. There is no
logical change for init scripts that do not use pid files, they will still use
pidof to locate pids of their processes. The logical change for scripts that
pid files is that they cannot have similarly named processes inadvertently
associated with their service, a good thing. However, if the script uses pid
files and those pid files are improperly managed, i.e. don't hold correct pids
for the service or are not removed when the service stops, the script is
essentially relying on pidof and this change will expose the dependency and
broken pid file management.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-02-15 13:14 EST --
Created an attachment (id=295025)
proposed patch to rc.d/init.d/functions
I'm seeing this bug with cachefilesd. The initscript for that recurses into
itself about three times for condrestart, and in the innermost process, pidof
finds the PID of the outermost process when cachefilesd isn't running (noticed
when fixing bug 237827).
*** Bug 463205 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
See bug 433018 for the upstream patch - something like that would probably be reasonable for RHEL 5.
Please test the erratum candidate:
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.