Re: Inetd Enhancements - Include Directive

[James Browning <jamesbrowning137%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 06:06:18PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> lstat()?  The rest of that sentence looks to me like a better match for
> stat() rather than lstat().

You're right, I had the behavior of lstat and stat confused.

> I would argue skipping hardlinks is a msitake.  If I want to share
> config files between two inetds running with different root
> directories, but on the same filesystem, hardlinking the configs
> together strikes me as the obvious way to do it, and I think it should
> work.  Almost nothing else insists that a plain file have no more than
> one link (and in the few cases that do, I usually consider it a mistake
> anyway).

I meant to convey that neither hard links nor symbolic links will be skipped.

> Suggestion: provide a directive (!depthlimit?) that allows setting the
> limit.

This is really good suggestion, we will certainly try this. I guess my only
question regarding this would be what happens when an included file tries
to change the depthlimit? Or should the directive be ignored outside of the
primary configuration file?

> Also, what does it mean for inetd to "quit"?  Does it stop recursing,
> or does it completely fail to start, or what?  Personally, I'd suggest
> treating such a thing as an erroneous configuration, with all that
> implies, preferably failing to start if it's the first startup or
> griping and continuing with the old config if it's a reload.

By quit I meant that it will stop parsing, log an error, and exit. Thank you
for bringing up reloading, you're right that we will probably want to keep the
old config without exiting in that case.