Re: named or not?

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 18:39 +0200, Tomislav Vujec wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:41 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > No, NM no longer spawns named directly at any point.  If named is
> > already running (we check whether the DBUS service that named provides
> > is active or not) then NM will use it.  If the service is not running,
> > NM falls back to writing /etc/resolv.conf.  NM no longer launches named
> > at all.
> 
> I've noticed that patched bind also comes with the service file:
> /usr/share/dbus-1/services/named.service
> As it is now, D-BUS uses similar service file for dhcdbd to start the
> service if it is not already running. Why is starting named a
> requirement, while starting dhcdbd happens automatically? 

Starting dhcdbd automatically is incorrect and the code should be
removed.  I'm not sure we've gotten around to it, because while it's
incorrect, it doesn't cause unwanted operation in most cases.

The problem here is really two things.  First, it's a system level
daemon that doesn't require NetworkManager.  NM is simply a client of
both of these daemons.

Second, SELinux has problems here.  If you start these from the
initscripts, they have one context.  But if _NetworkManager_ spawns them
by itself, they have a different context, as they should under SELinux.
This means that you have to synchronize two different policies with
slightly different contexts, which means more work.  It's not critical
that NM be able to spawn dhcdbd either.

So the decision was made to essentially rely on dhcdbd being available.
The code to spawn it just might not have been removed.

Dan