Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child? | | From | Nicholas Miell <> | | Date | Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:52:14 -0700 |
| |
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 11:22 -0700, John Z. Bohach wrote: > Hello, > > It is unclear from the various documentions in the kernel and glibc what > the proper behaviour should be for the case when a child process > catches a SIGNAL (say for instance, SIGTERM), and then calls exit() > from within its caught SIGNAL handler. > > Since the exit() will cause a SIGCHLD to the parent, and the parent > (let's say) has a SIGCHLD sigaction (SA_SIGINFO sa_flags set), should > the parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true? > > To recap, the WIFSIGNALED section of the waitpid() manpage says: > > WIFSIGNALED(status) > returns true if the child process was terminated by a signal. > > So the dilemna: the child caught the signal, so it wasn't terminated by > a signal, but rather its signal handler (let's say) called exit.
POSIX says
WIFSIGNALED(stat_val) Evaluates to a non-zero value if status was returned for a child process that terminated due to the receipt of a signal that was not caught (see <signal.h>).
So there's no dilemma at all and Linux is non-conformant.
-- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |