Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Add kern.reboot_on_halt sysctl
AbandonedPublic

Authored by trasz on May 16 2022, 3:00 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F82091905: D35222.diff
Thu, Apr 25, 10:24 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Apr 23, 3:04 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Apr 22, 7:04 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Apr 3, 4:38 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Mar 27, 12:02 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 6 2024, 11:18 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 10 2023, 7:42 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 26 2023, 5:29 AM

Details

Reviewers
mhorne
Summary

This can be set on machines that can't be power cycled remotely,
to prevent halting them by mistake.

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
Lint
Lint Passed
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 45591
Build 42479: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

trasz requested review of this revision.May 16 2022, 3:00 PM

This is a lot more complicated and code is probably to far down in kernel to do without layer violations/stupid. But having an automode that would check if someone was on a physical console(monitor/keyboard or serial) and if halt is run over ssh or similar(mosh) then reboot instead.

I figure not practically but wanted to raise idea incase it's important to someone else or easy to do.

I guess you were burnt by this problem @trasz? ;)

I think it is somewhat of a strange band-aid to be honest, but I understand the consequences of an accidental halt on a remote machine. My question really is, is there even a valid use-case to halt the machine but not reboot in 2022? Other than the "importance" of maintaining halt's historical behaviour, I would almost think having kern.reboot_on_halt=1 is a better default.

Also, doesn't an accidental poweroff have the same problem?

I don't oppose the patch as-is, but you should document the tunable somewhere, maybe in halt(8).

This is a lot more complicated and code is probably to far down in kernel to do without layer violations/stupid. But having an automode that would check if someone was on a physical console(monitor/keyboard or serial) and if halt is run over ssh or similar(mosh) then reboot instead.

I figure not practically but wanted to raise idea incase it's important to someone else or easy to do.

Agreed with the sentiment entirely, but you are correct about layering here.

Halting the machine is still important in 2022. A number of people want to power it off afterwards, though sometimes the automatic power is busted.

I've been burned by this in the past, but I've assumed it's just me. This time, though, there was another person involved, and this made me reconsider. In this case it's not even that it's a remote machine: this is for a homebrew remote management mechanism; essentially we have BeagleBone Blacks hooked up to the actual machines (mechanically they are inside the machines), which provide remote console and virtual media, and halting one of those by mistake - for example when you fail to notice the cu(1) to the "real" machine has been disconnected - results in having to power cycle the whole thing, which is one thing our BBB-based remote management does not provide.

This patch does reboot for both halt(8) and poweroff(8). It doesn't handle entering ddb(4), but there's another sysctl for that one. Thanks for answering my question I forgot to ask, which was what's a good place to document this :-)