[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250118102356.GL10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 05:23:56 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [bug] Ctrl-Z when process is doing posix_spawn makes the
process hard to kill
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Askar Safin:
>
> > Thanks a lot for answer!
> >
> > ---- On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:37:09 +0400 Rich Felker wrote ---
> > > Note that SIGSTOP, which is not blockable interceptible or ignorable,
> > > can't be handled this way, but the pid has not yet leaked to anything
> > > at this point, so the only way SIGSTOP can be generated is by a badly
> > > behaved program signaling random pids, which is not a case that needs
> > > to be handled gracefully.
> >
> > But what if somebody sends SIGSTOP to whole process group using kill(2)?
>
> I would expect that they send SIGCONT afterwards to the same process
> group, to resume execution of all processes. Doesn't this avoid the
> issue?
I mean if you just want a heuristic fix.. I guess?
But certainly they could send SIGSTOP to the group then SIGCONT only
to the single known process.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
