From: Jordan Ritter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Problem with binding UNIX listeners before checking PID
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:38:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8D95A44B-A098-43BE-B532-7D74BD957F31@darkridge.com> (raw)
I have lately been frustrated by the following use case:
1. Run nginx/unicorn in production, listening on a UNIX socket with a defined pid file. Things run good.
2. Someone pushes code, unicorn restarts just fine, workers are all up and running.
3. But someone is suspicious, or maybe they forget which box they're logged into, so they invoke unicorn manually. Same directory, same settings.
4. It looks like the pid file check kicked in, because unicorn refuses to boot - hey, it's already running, bugger off. great.
5. BUT, this happened *after* the listener processing: the manually-invoked unicorn unlinks the real unicorn master's unix listener, so it's left dead in the water and everybody loses.
unicorn master doesn't know its listener is actually gone (but lsof shows open unix socket fd, netstat shows unix socket still present, so cursory investigation is misleading), but nginx keeps spewing ECONNREFUSEDs because the unix socket it's hitting belongs to that accidental unicorn instance that already decided not to stick around.
I think this is effectively about a behavioral difference in Unicorn::SocketHelper#bind_listen around the handling of UNIX vs. TCP sockets (this doesn't happen with TCP sockets because there's no unlink/disconnect step), and the fact that HttpServer#start evaluates the listener config before the PID path/config.
Now I see comments in and around HttpServer#initialize talking about races wrt binding to the listener and whatnot, and being newish to the codebase I admit I haven't yet fully absorbed all the considerations at play.
But I think it's fair to say that killing the listener(s) (in the UNIX socket case) before discovering you shouldn't have run in the first place (from the PID file) qualifies as buggy/bad/broken behavior.
I might suggest simply swapping their processing order in #start, but given the complexity of in-place restarts and other race considerations, I have doubts solving this would be that easy.
Unicorn mailing list - email@example.com
Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
next reply other threads:[~2010-10-02 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-02 16:38 Jordan Ritter [this message]
2010-10-04 4:17 ` Problem with binding UNIX listeners before checking PID Eric Wong
2010-10-04 4:22 ` [PATCH] avoid unlinking actively listening sockets Eric Wong
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://yhbt.net/unicorn/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).