On 18/04/2017 at 16:42, karl@??? wrote:
> Alessandro:
>> On 18/04/2017 at 15:11, karl@??? wrote:
>>> Alessandro Selli:
>>> ...
>>>> And
>>>> what I don't like of Karl Aspo's idea is that it takes any instrument of
>>>> policy checking and enforcing out of the monitor, which ends up not
>>>> being able to monitor anything, it becomes just a shell: fire and forget.
>>> I honestly do not understand what I have written which gives you that idé.
>> Your many lines that the monitor is not to do any monitoring. Like:
>> "Why do any monitor program need to know if the program has detached or
>> not, the only thing it needs to know is the pid and the state,".
> You cut out the thing after the "," which makes that a question for
> someone else to fill in the blanks, the things that's not obvious
> to me.

I got you had a question, I did understand you had no idea why would
"any monitor program need to know if the program has detached or not".
Again I quote myself:

«All daemons detach from the control terminal. The monitor and the
daemon must coordinate each other about who's doing the detach to avoid
launch time failures.»

It's been obvious to all Unix sysadmins for thirty sound years, if
it's still not clear to you I think I must give up.

> If a process knows the pid of another process and have sufficient
> rights, can it not manage that process or is there anything else it
> needs to know, what am I missing ?

It manages them based on what? Local config files, events
transmitted, signals....? You're missing the whole "monitoring" and
policing the monitor does besides launching the daemon.


Alessandro