You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
When nutcracker is run with the -d option (to daemonize), nutcracker internally sets its umask to 0. When -d is not specified, nutcracker leaves its umask alone.
Expected behavior
Nutcracker leaving the umask alone is arguably better (so that the local administrator can specify the umask), but either way, I think nutcracker should be internally consistent.
Additional context
This issue causes unexpected behavior when migrating from sysvinit to systemd. Common practice for systemd is to run daemons in the foreground.
A workaround for systemd is to use the UMask option.
Describe the bug
When nutcracker is run with the
-d
option (to daemonize), nutcracker internally sets its umask to 0. When-d
is not specified, nutcracker leaves its umask alone.To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Set shell umask, e.g.:
Run nutcracker as e.g.:
Observe umask:
Kill nutcracker and then run without
-d
, e.g.:Observe umask:
Expected behavior
Nutcracker leaving the umask alone is arguably better (so that the local administrator can specify the umask), but either way, I think nutcracker should be internally consistent.
Additional context
This issue causes unexpected behavior when migrating from sysvinit to systemd. Common practice for systemd is to run daemons in the foreground.
A workaround for systemd is to use the
UMask
option.https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exec.html
Credit for the gdb one-liner:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/165212/linux-getting-umask-of-an-already-running-process/38861278#38861278
Thanks,
Corey
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: