Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:13:40 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Duncan Barclay <dmlb@dmlb.org> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: TIOCSCTTY not implemented in linuxulator? Message-ID: <20020905211340.GA705@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020905194033.dmlb@computer.my.domain> References: <XFMail.20020905174357.dmlb@computer.my.domain> <XFMail.20020905194033.dmlb@computer.my.domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:40:33PM +0100, Duncan Barclay wrote:
> At this point ps shows
> PGID PID PPID WCHAN STAT TT TIME COMMAND
> 6255 6255 5319 wait I+ p1 0:00.93 /ide3.g/matlab6p1/bin/glnx86/matlab
> 6255 6404 6255 - Z+ p1 0:00.00 (matlab)
> and a kill -9 is needed.
>
> Should the wait4 by pid=6255 actually have the WCLONE option set? It is
> reaping a cloned process.
I don't think the option is required. Looking in /sys/kern/kern_exit.c
(-current sources) where we consume the options I see the following test:
if ((p->p_sigparent != SIGCHLD) ^
((uap->options & WLINUXCLONE) != 0)) {
PROC_UNLOCK(p);
continue;
}
For -stable sources this is (reformatted):
if ((p->p_sigparent != SIGCHLD) ^
((uap->options & WLINUXCLONE) != 0))
continue;
The equivalent in the Linux kernel is (reformatted):
if (((p->exit_signal != SIGCHLD) ^
((options & __WCLONE) != 0))
&& !(options & __WALL))
continue;
So, we have a __WALL that can make a difference and guess what we don't
promote in the Linuxulator?
Can you put a printf() in linux_wait4() so that we can see if __WALL
(defined as 0x40000000) is present or not?
--
Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020905211340.GA705>