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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html