Re: Bug in ucspilogd v2.2.0.0

From: Laurent Bercot <ska-skaware_at_skarnet.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:15:48 +0200

> I'd be unsurprised if rsyslog has done datagrams for a while.
> omuxsock, the rsyslog log sender module, only does datagrams so I'd be
> surprised if imuxsock didn't handle them natively. Hell, they might
> have been always sending datagrams but not removing the stream markers
> until recently.

  Yup, that's it.

  Oh, it's a mess. A huge mess; there doesn't seem to be any authority
on the details of the syslog protocol. No normative body, the client
is in the libc, the server is an application: a definite recipe for
success!

  I've asked on the musl-libc list what they know about it. musl syslog()
only uses datagrams, and actually fails to send anything to syslogd
when a stream server is listening. It worked with glibc and uClibc -
did those attempt connecting to a stream if the datagram failed ? >.>

  Waiting for an answer from the musl people. Oh, how I hate those
situations. The right thing is obviously never to use syslog(), but
it's so hard to get that through thick skulls used to decades of poor
Unix history.

-- 
  Laurent
Received on Mon Aug 10 2015 - 21:15:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:38:49 UTC