GNU bug report logs - #57922
Shepherd doesn't seem to correctly handle waitpid itself

Previous Next

Full log

Message #16 received at 57922-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, 57922-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#57922: Shepherd doesn't seem to correctly handle waitpid
 itself
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 13:49:26 -0400

tags 57922 +notabug
thanks

Hi Ludo!

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> What I don't understand that well is that this signal handler could be
>> installed only once when shepherd starts, right?  That way, it wouldn't
>> need to depend on specific start actions being chosen.
>
> The SIGCHLD handler is installed lazily since
> f776de04e6702e18d95152072e78c43441d3ccc3.  The rationale was discussed
> here:
>
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/27553
>
> That said, on GNU/Linux, SIGCHLD is actually blocked and instead we rely
> on signalfd(2).  It’s from the main even loop in shepherd.scm that the
> signal handler is called.

I had missed that, thanks for explaining.

>>> Here's a small reproducer to apply on our code base:
>>>
>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>> modified   gnu/services/telephony.scm
>>> @@ -685,13 +685,7 @@ (define (archive-name->username archive)
>>>
>>>                      ;; Finally, return the PID of the daemon process.
>>>                      daemon-pid))
>>> -               (stop
>>> -                #~(lambda (pid . args)
>>> -                    (kill pid SIGKILL)
>>> -                    ;; Wait for the process to exit; this prevents overlapping
>>> -                    ;; processes when issuing 'herd restart'.
>>> -                    (waitpid pid)
>>> -                    #f))))))))
>>> +               (stop #~(make-kill-destructor))))))))
>
> I think the main difference between these two is that the first one uses
> SIGKILL while the second one uses SIGTERM.
>
> You could try #~(make-kill-destructor SIGKILL) to get the same effect.

You are right, the important difference was SIGTERM vs SIGKILL.  I
thought I had tried that.  The problem only shows itself in the
'jami-provisioning' system test, not the 'jami' one.

Marking this one as notabug and closing.

Thanks again!

Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.