Re: stage4 of shutdown
Paul Sopka <[email protected]> Tue, 23 Dec 2025 08:54:43 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <aUpKw7QPWxVzIL8K@NANDERTY> |
--gr6zQLsjfEaKDNDH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > By definition, the s6-linux-init binaries have to reside on the root > partition. That includes s6-linux-init-hpr. There is no reason to > move that binary away. > The only s6-linux-init binary that would make sense to have on a > different partition is s6-linux-init-maker, because it's not used at > boot or shutdown time. You can package it that way if you want. > But s6-linux-init-hpr has to stay on the root partition. You *might* > manage to make it work otherwise, but I think you'll find the trade-offs > are just not worth it. > This is not a request to change s6-linux-init in any way. I understand that it must reside on root and I am convinced that this is a = good solution. I am doing an experiment here, depending on the outcome of which I might change my own scripts (also including an init script). Thats why I am asking whether remounting read-only over umounting would be feasable. > One of the differences between boot and shutdown is that when booting, > you know exactly what state your machine is in, and what processes are > running on it. But when shutting down, you don't. Even if (a) is true > in the beginning, users can launch backgrounded nohup scripts that > detach > from their login session and evade control by any instance of > s6-supervise. That is an entirely legitimate use of the machine's > resources, you cannot forbid it. So you cannot rely on (a). > That was exactly what I was unsure about and the main reason I came to ask here, thank you! > As is, a s6-linux-init shutdown, even with a normal grace period, is > *much* faster than an OpenRC shutdown, and to my knowledge, a little > faster than a systemd shutdown. I see no benefit in trying to make it > even faster at the price of reliability. >=20 I am not trying to make it faster, but to cut down on complexity, I now understand that this specific complexity is really necessary. Best regards, Paul Sopka --gr6zQLsjfEaKDNDH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJPBAABCAA5FiEEklpwGqZx1YzBW1hqccfIWi6jD2IFAmlKSr8bFIAAAAAABAAO bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTEsMiwyAAoJEHHHyFouow9igKQP/jVt+yfaG5zkebPqUxvA IXl5/wXuJFdUC+Z1i/UabwgnAoRlM9J8//9WF1EPwYRSE2oYzqJ2FMR/IOniVVom FZdmX4ykRcdxE0AS5JBjw118gLK6tHNrVyjAidh7arbZtLYbw7CI8kH9diOHBL+5 hRTVEc4JPyfrvhUC5wzKQNrJoYTkeE0K+i1jJcRu9z23l/MF5jS6ZPJMn+UaV2fH 8EJy29uOxxf/oIoQISmo9MXf5G0TynUP29ZVbTIBHoeX9/FOErPq9WgkoJqln7W2 DgJ1e91eDfv6yTtQ9ITyRla4JKQi64lfTh8Tqa9gqg0jdNc9KqKaYnbMKB/SHc7w qdE3YxX7hvnsj9zQLIuEr0s0iuhEiiJeEWGlHPKssg2HQbdIPrxQkurs454bkln+ JSmju1WA+1896khKaf5vtnQzDRkz57BJSdsTkodEVtI7yjhgZFMDChW3hUS+x3Q3 teFHtgpk8fON2CxC1S3PReaOV1OxbCNmZWP0BZKVFQeNhpD+BzzR+uCOJk2FdGaI KNdlObVVHT8nzU1NJPxZeUSvArtccj4H14afa1qjwa6UP86cLMVQcIyM5XQuT5LK PnVfcMOKk5QddM1VexUYvbvZ3sqw3+NihSYdqLyXwwz5U9PvCqL9CrToLRyPrLZZ Y7CrzTSfLgrQRBFJbHUcRtDX =VJtu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gr6zQLsjfEaKDNDH--