From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CJnyq-0000ES-Nv for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:24 -0700 Received: from marasystems.com ([83.241.133.2] helo=filer.marasystems.com) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CJnyp-0000m5-UQ for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:24 -0700 From: Henrik Nordstrom Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [uml-user] Host processes never terminate on 2.6.9rc3 host (stuck in ptrace_stop) In-Reply-To: <200410190023.14067.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Message-ID: References: <4173F1FD.6080004@colitti.com> <200410182118.09005.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> <20041018212612.GA3052@bytesex> <200410190023.14067.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:59:53 +0200 (CEST) To: BlaisorBlade Cc: Gerd Knorr , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Lorenzo Colitti , Massimo Rimondini On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote: > Can you try using SIGCONT, please? Even the patch changelog clearly says that > you must kill -CONT before kill -KILL (actually, a kill -CONT may make the > process notice the SIGKILL), and that behaviour can be reproduced, I think, > on every kernel version. There has been a thread on this (t-mode processes) > on uml-devel. Quite frankly, I do not know the question myself - but people > seem to agree that this is a correct behaviour. The t-mode thread is about stopped traced processes where the tracing parent have gone away (killed or whatever). There it can be argued if it is sane to delay the SIGKILL only because the process is stopped. It would be more natural to KILL the process in this specific case. If the tracing parent is still alive the natural thing would be to save the signal as pending and notify the parent when the child is restarted. A SIGKILL to a traced process in my opinion should not kill the traced process without allowing the tracing parent to veto on the signal. Regards Henrik ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel