[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix handling of SIGCHILD from reaped child
    On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:20:49 +0300
    Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
    > > > > + clear_stale_sigchild(current, retval);
    > > >
    > > > But we are not checking that SIGCHLD is blocked?
    > > >
    > > I'm sorry if I don't read SUSv3 correctly. SUSv3 doesn't define how we should
    > > do if SIGCHLD is not blocked.(so I don't check not-blocked case.)
    > Probably it is me who misunderstands SUSv3. Could you point me the reference
    > to authoritative document? My understanding: if blocked AND wait() succeeds.
    I read this:

    > > IMHO, user's sig-child-handler is tend to call wait()/waitpid() and expects
    > > successful return. So removing stale signal here may be good.
    > Yes. But sig-child-handler should do
    > while (wait() >= 0)
    > ....
    > anyway, because SIGCHLD is not a realtime signal.
    > looks I should explation why I found this more.

    A user (who is migrated from Solaris) met following situation.
    ==(single threaded program.)

    pid1 = fork();
    if (!pid1) {
    ....set SIGCHLD handler here to catch pid1's error-exit....

    if (!pid2) {
    Block SIGCHLD
    ret = waitpid(pid2, hoge, hoge); // wait for pid2

    And SIGCHLD handler didn't use WNOHANG.
    I asked him to fix his program. He agreed.(So, no problem now.)

    While our problem was fixed, it seems Linux doesn't meet spec.(SUSv3)
    So I posted.
    But this is rare situation and this fix makes codes ugly....


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-21 01:47    [W:0.021 / U:15.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site