Re: [Dovecot] Major CPU spike for SSL parameters?
Jan 23 00:38:03 foxmulder dovecot: Dovecot v1.0.beta2 starting up Jan 23 00:38:03 foxmulder dovecot: 1137994456 + 172800 (1138167256) < 1137994683, size=230, uid=0 vs 0, gid=87 vs 0 Jan 23 00:38:21 foxmulder dovecot: SSL parameters regeneration completed Jan 23 00:48:04 foxmulder dovecot: 1137994701 + 172800 (1138167501) < 1137995284, size=230, uid=0 vs 0, gid=87 vs 0 Jan 23 00:48:32 foxmulder dovecot: SSL parameters regeneration completed Jan 23 00:58:04 foxmulder dovecot: 1137995312 + 172800 (1138168112) < 1137995884, size=230, uid=0 vs 0, gid=87 vs 0 Jan 23 00:58:39 foxmulder dovecot: SSL parameters regeneration completed
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 23.1.2006 01:11, "Peter Chiu" pc8888@gmail.com wrote:
I tried your patch again b2 and I am still having the same problem.
Jan 22 17:57:30 foxmulder dovecot: Dovecot v1.0.beta2 starting up Jan 22 17:57:30 foxmulder dovecot: ssl_parameters_regenerate = 48 Jan 22 17:58:30 foxmulder dovecot: SSL parameters regeneration completed Jan 22 18:07:31 foxmulder dovecot: ssl_parameters_regenerate = 48 Jan 22 18:07:43 foxmulder dovecot: SSL parameters regeneration completed
Hmm. Maybe the file's timestamp is wrong or the uid/gid. Try this patch:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 01:07 -0500, Peter Chiu wrote:
Jan 23 00:38:03 foxmulder dovecot: Dovecot v1.0.beta2 starting up Jan 23 00:38:03 foxmulder dovecot: 1137994456 + 172800 (1138167256) < 1137994683, size=230, uid=0 vs 0, gid=87 vs 0
So, the GID is wrong. Does your /var/run/dovecot/login directory (or wherever the ssl-parameters file exists) have setgid-bit set?
Maybe I should make it change the group just in case anyway.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Jan 23 00:38:03 foxmulder dovecot: Dovecot v1.0.beta2 starting up Jan 23 00:38:03 foxmulder dovecot: 1137994456 + 172800 (1138167256) < 1137994683, size=230, uid=0 vs 0, gid=87 vs 0
So, the GID is wrong. Does your /var/run/dovecot/login directory (or wherever the ssl-parameters file exists) have setgid-bit set?
Not all systems have a group inheritance behavior for directories. You should not rely on this, and thus you should chown(uid, gid). On my system the gid of the file is, in fact, "wheel" (0, aka group "root" on Linux) -- but the getegid() of the process is "dovecot", NOT "wheel".
Even with that said, it should not be required to have a specific gid for the containing directory. If the process wants special permissions, it should set those permissions itself. 8-)
-- -- Todd Vierling tv@duh.org tv@pobox.com todd@vierling.name
participants (3)
-
Peter Chiu
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Todd Vierling