Comment 10 for bug 1710278

On 12/08/17 01:11, Mike Pontillo wrote:
> Finally, I think your last bullet requires more discussion before we can
> work on it. MAAS currently uses sudoers rules specific to the init
> system to start and stop services like bind9; we do not currently have
> permission to 'kill -9' arbitrary processes. I'm concerned that if we go
> down that road, we would open up the possibility that MAAS could
> erroneously (or due to a malicious attack) believe that bind9 isn't
> working and repeatedly kill it without good cause, or be convinced to
> 'kill -9' an incorrect process.

This bug causes named to be unresponsive to anything other than kill -9.

MAAS installed, configured, started, and validates named's behaviour.
Assume there is no operator. Since kill -9 is necessary on occasion, it
follows that MAAS must have and must use that ability.

I could see MAAS trying it a few times and then giving up with a big
alert to the operators. But I absolutely think MAAS should treat this as
a bug in named which should be logged and managed nicely but nonetheless
handled transparently to users.