Set the signal mask before forking #104
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
I can't think of a good way to test this, looks good to me though /me merges |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #102
We don't currently set the signal mask before forking. If the child process exits very quickly (probably most probable when the child fails to exec, which is the test we saw it in), the parent might receive
SIGCHLDbefore it has set the mask and thus never wait on the child.Any suggestions on writing tests for this? It's a hard race to force (it takes about 5000 spawns of dumb-init on my machine).
After this change I haven't been able to reproduce after 100,000 spawns. This is also what some other init systems do, such as sinit.