On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:20 PM, <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 02:34:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > A process launching a new process with CLONE_FD is explicitly requesting
>> > that the process be automatically reaped without any other process
>> > having to wait on it. The task needs to not become a zombie, because
>> > otherwise, it'll show up in waitpid(-1, ...) calls in the parent
>> > process, which would break the ability to use this to completely
>> > encapsulate process management within a library and not interfere with
>> > the parent's process handling via SIGCHLD and wait{pid,3,4}.
>>
>> Wouldn't the correct behavior be to keep it alive as a zombie but
>> *not* show it in waitpid, etc?
>
> That's a significant change to the semantics of waitpid. And then
> someone would still need to wait on the process, which we'd like to
> avoid. (We don't want to have magic "reap on read(2)" semantics,
> because among other things, what if we add a means in the future to get
> an additional file descriptor corresponding to an existing process?)
>
Do we not already have a state "dead, successfully waited on by
parent, but still around because ptraced"? If not, shouldn't we?
Isn't that what PTRACE_SEIZE does? Or am I just confused?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
