On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:28:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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?
I don't think that affects the task's exit_state though.
- Josh Triplett
--
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
