Creating a "fix" that only removes the file on boot is not a fix....
I have taken over this issue from Amad and have looked into the code. The file exclusive create approach is a bad substitution for real locking. I have a patch done that I am in the process of building a PPA to test, this uses real locking.
File existence as a lock is bad because if the process dies or is killed it leaves a stale file around blocking any new ebtables instance from running. The approach taken in Zesty is not a real solution either since it just shifts the problem around. If the process is killed or crashes by an un-trappable signal the file will persist until the system is rebooted. Hardly a solution....
My patch creates a real lock on the file that is automatically released on exit or a crash.
Creating a "fix" that only removes the file on boot is not a fix....
I have taken over this issue from Amad and have looked into the code. The file exclusive create approach is a bad substitution for real locking. I have a patch done that I am in the process of building a PPA to test, this uses real locking.
File existence as a lock is bad because if the process dies or is killed it leaves a stale file around blocking any new ebtables instance from running. The approach taken in Zesty is not a real solution either since it just shifts the problem around. If the process is killed or crashes by an un-trappable signal the file will persist until the system is rebooted. Hardly a solution....
My patch creates a real lock on the file that is automatically released on exit or a crash.