Re: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for child processes

[Ray Lee]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 05.03.10 11:18, Roland McGrath (roland@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
>>
>> > Oh, no. Actually getting the SIGCHILD is the needed feature here. A
>> > process who sets the ANCHOR flag is surely expected to handle these
>> > signals. It's all about a user "init-like" process" that can do
>> > similar things for a logged-in user what /sbin/init can to for the
>> > system. So, it's all about 1.), and 3.) is a nice side-effect, but not
>> > the motivation to do this.
>>
>> Please explain this more explicitly. ÂWhat the actual init does with
>> miscellaneous reparented processes is just reap them and ignore their
>> status. ÂWhat do you intend an "anchor" process to do other than that?
>
> It could use the grandchildren's SIGCHLDs for various task management
> issues: i.e. watching double-forking daemons, catch SIGSEGVS so that you
> can crosslink that service state to systems like abrt. Or even just that
> you can implement a safe restarting logic: i.e. so that we can easily
> wait that a process and its children are fully dead before we restart
> the service.

The kernel already offers system-wide process exit notification via
taskstats (a netlink interface), though unfortunately I believe it's
optional. It's pretty easy to use (as these things go, anyway -- I was
able to hack up an arbitrary process exit watcher in about a half hour
based on Documentation/accounting/getdelays.c).

Would this existing mechanism cover what you need?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/