[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <124669.1325952830@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:13:50 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl: add PR_{SET,GET}_CHILD_SUBREAPER to allow simple process supervision
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:56:37 +0100, Kay Sievers said:
> Resending this, it got lost last year's September.
>
> We still need it to properly implement init-like service managers.
> From: Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>
> Subject: prctl: add PR_{SET,GET}_CHILD_SUBREAPER to allow simple process supervision
> Users of this will be the systemd per-user instance, which provides
> init-like functionality for the user's login session and D-Bus, which
> activates bus services on-demand. Both need init-like capabilities
> to be able to properly keep track of the services they start.
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -552,6 +552,18 @@ struct signal_struct {
> int group_stop_count;
> unsigned int flags; /* see SIGNAL_* flags below */
>
> + /*
> + * PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER marks a process, like a service
> + * manager, to re-parent orphan (double-forking) child processes
> + * to this process instead of 'init'. The service manager is
> + * able to receive SIGCHLD signals and is able to investigate
> + * the process until it calls wait(). All children of this
> + * process will inherit a flag if they should look for a
> + * child_subreaper process at exit.
> + */
> + unsigned int is_child_subreaper:1;
> + unsigned int has_child_subreaper:1;
Is there someplace we can stick these two fields where they won't expand the
signal_struct? Can we stick them in signal_struct->flags instead? Looks like we've
only burned 3 bits of that unsigned int. Yes, I know that would complicate the
prctl get/set code.
> + /* find the first ancestor marked as child_subreaper */
> + for (reaper = father->real_parent;
> + reaper != &init_task;
> + reaper = reaper->real_parent) {
I admit being insufficiently caffienated - does this DTRT in a PID namespace? That
&init_task looks fishy to me...
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists