[systemd-devel] Crash with extra space after Exec prefix

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Wed May 13 10:50:06 PDT 2015

Am 13.05.2015 um 19:11 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Lennart Poettering [2015-05-13 17:55 +0200]:
>> On Wed, 13.05.15 17:01, Martin Pitt (martin.pitt at ubuntu.com) wrote:
>>> So, obviously we need to fix the crash; but I was wondering what the
>>> desired behaviour should be? In the sense of "be liberal what you
>>> accept" I think the extra space(s) should just be ignored; or should
>>> that count as an error and the unit get rejected?
>> Neither.
>> It should be considered an error, logged about, but the line should be
>> ignored and we should continue. This is how we usually do it so far,
>> to ensure unit files stay relatively portable between version, but on
>> the other hand we aren't too liberal with accepting any data.
> You mean ignoring this single line, but still starting the unit (with
> any other Exec*=)? That feels quite odd to me, TBH -- it feels more
> robust if a unit is either completely valid, or completely inert?

no it is not - where do you draw the line

if a unit contains options for systemd-216 and completly valid on F21 
but the same src.rpm is used for F20 would you like to fail the service 
or just have the log noise of the unknown option?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20150513/21e2e9b7/attachment.sig>

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list