This change does not affect any kernel functionality. What it does
do however is introduce warnings under certain circumstances with
respect to SIGCHLD signal semantics. The circumstances addressed are
when a parent process decides to wait for termination of one of its
child processes, but does so with its SIGCHLD signal handler set to
SIG_IGN. If the child process terminates while its parent is
waiting, this is not a problem. But if the child terminates before
the parent waits, then the parent will be told it has no children
(because the kernel has already gotten rid of any indication of the
child's existence). This can confuse the parent process.
So far, I have been unsuccessful at digging up what various standards
such as POSIX have to say about this case. So, I am hoping that
someone on this list will point me to an already existing solution to
this problem (and thus tell me whether I am out to lunch on this one
:-)).
>From POSIX.1, 3.3.1.3(2)(d):
If a process sets the action for the SIGCHLD signal to SIG_IGN,
the behavior is unspecified.
And from the rataionale section of POSIX.1, B.3.3.1.3
Historical implementations discard pending signals when the
action is set to SIG_IGN. However, they do not always do the
same when the action is set to SIG_DFL and the default action is
to ignore the signal. POSIX.1 requires this for the sake of
consistency and also for completeness, since the only signal
this applies to SIGCHLD, and POSIX.1 disallows setting its
action to SIG_IGN.
The specification of SIG_IGN on SIGCHLD as implementation
defined permits, but does not require, the System V effect of
causing terminating children to be ignored by wait(). Yet it
permits SIGCHLD to be effectively ignored in an
impleemntation-independent manner by use of SIG_DFL.
Some implementations (System V, for example) assign different
semantics for SIGCLD depending on whether the action is set to
SIG_IGN or SIG_DFL. Since POSIX.1 requires that the default
action for SIGCHLD be to ignore the signal, applications should
always set the action to SIG_DFL in order to avoid SIGCHLD.
So the bottom line is what we're doing is allowed by POSIX, and
compatible with System V. Given that it's compatible with System V, it
may very well be required by SVID and/or Spec 1170. If someone who has
access to either SVID or Spec 1170, do please comment on this issue....
- Ted