pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pmda persistent indom cache access issues

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pmda persistent indom cache access issues
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 18:10:22 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5182D33E.4080608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5181BB30.6000905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0mzjwe893k.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <5182D33E.4080608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: JT8Y/iXyqnOrjB07kzW5FeV+32KEAQ==
Thread-topic: pmda persistent indom cache access issues

----- Original Message -----
> ...
> As Dave noted later, and I discovered independently, making
> /var/lib/pcp/config/pmda owned by the user pcp appears to be sufficient
> for most cases.
> 
> The simple PMDA seems to be the main culprit, so I also applied an Irish
> (to be sure, to be sure) fix to the Install script there to remove any
> of its own PMDA InDom files from this directory before starting a new
> invocation of the PMDA.

For some unfathomable reason, when Dave mentioned it to me I thought it
was just pmdasimple affected, but of course its indicative of a slightly
wider problem.

> The one problem with all of this is that /var/lib/pcp/config/pmda is not
> actually included in the PCP package ... 

I think we have to do this now right?  And I think, given a PMDA can now
run as any user (well, always could, so this problem has always existed),
we need to make it another tmpdir-alike (sticky bit set) directory ... ?

On top of that, the Install chown trick sounds like the way to go.  We're
a bit fortunate I guess that more PMDAs are not using this (pmdapostgres,
etc) so far, with their own user accounts - that would've compounded the
issue a fair bit.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>