Hi Ludo,

That is not a fix.  It's a workaround for now.

It's good that the "is a shepherd already running" check is back in shepherd.  It was in shepherd years ago, then got removed without explanation, then now it's back again (now in a very convoluted but safer way).  This shouldn't have been removed in the first place.  It's EXTREMELY dangerous to have multiple parallel shepherds for the same user (automated backup service destroying backups etc).  Please, let's not remove it ever again.

In any case, what shepherd 1.0.4 does is stop the bleeding, but not fix the problem:
It prevents two (or 100) user shepherds for the same user from running in parallel.
It does not stop shepherd when a user closed all their sessions.

Why close this bug report before elogind is patched and before ~/.bash_logout is generated in guix home?  That makes no sense.

Also, I don't understand why this is so broken for so long.  Isn't Guix used in HPC?
Doesn't HPC need support for multiple sessions for the same user on day one?

My untested elogind patch that invokes shepherd root stop is attached.  Reading the elogind source code, especially what they patched out and what they added themselves, makes me despair.  Why is it so terrible?  That all used to be fine! :P

Even my patch is not great.  A service manager's job is to manage services.  PID 1 is the main service manager.  It should manage services.  One of those services should be the user's shepherd, which should be managed by PID 1 shepherd and not weirdly attached to an already-running session (WTF!) of the user by this:

~$ cat ~/.profile
HOME_ENVIRONMENT=$HOME/.guix-home
. $HOME_ENVIRONMENT/setup-environment
$HOME_ENVIRONMENT/on-first-login
unset HOME_ENVIRONMENT

In my opinion, no one but the service manager should manage services.  Does ~/.profile look like a service manager?  No :P

I understand that we want to support this on non-guix-system stuff.  But the default should be a systemd user service to run the user shepherd.  If the user absolutely wants to do a workaround like ~/.profile above, fine, they can.  But let's not do that by default.

The problems with my elogind patch are the following:
- What if "herd stop root -s ..." hangs?  Then elogind hangs forever?  No one can log in or out anymore?  That's not okay.  Therefore, I don't wait.  Now user processes can have the floor upon they are walking removed on user stop, while they still need it :P
- When can /run/user/1000 be deleted?  There's a weird GC mechanism in elogind for that, and my patch says it can be deleted before waiting on the result of herd stop (see above why).  If I DID wait on the result of herd stop, I could wait indefinitely--which is not okay.  I think elogind uses signalfd, so I can't waitpid in a random spot either, or wait until waitpid returned.  I think the user shepherd knows when to delete /run/user/1000--and no one else.  But if user shepherd crashes, it won't delete /run/user/1000 and we want it to be able to start again even when /run/user/1000 is still there.  Hence complicated shepherd fix in 1.0.4 is useful.
- There is tool_fork_pid and sleep_fork_pid in elogind which is not a queue.  And, again, that is trying to be a service manager.  What if those scripts hang?  What if they DON'T hang?  Similar questions as before.  Separate the concerns already :P

Personally, I'd also like something that, if all sessions of user x are closed, it kills all remaining processes of that effective user id.  elogind has a setting KillUserProcesses that--despite the name--kills (WHICH!?) processes when a SESSION (of 42 sessions of that user :P) is closed.  Who wants THAT?  And even if someone does: how would THAT be implemented?

elogind is like containers never happened.  It's so weird.

I think to fix this problem for good, first there needs to be a system diagram created on how this is supposed to work.