[SSSD] [PATCH] when monitor_quit is call and the process not exists

Ariel Barria olivares73 at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 28 14:31:29 UTC 2012




Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:10:17 +0100
From: jhrozek at redhat.com
To: sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] when monitor_quit is call and the process not exists

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:48:25PM -0500, Ariel Barria wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:42:59 +0100
> > From: jhrozek at redhat.com
> > To: sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > Subject: Re: [SSSD] [PATCH] when monitor_quit is call and the process not exists
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:15:43PM -0500, Ariel Barria wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi.
> > > well, I'm not sure that this patch have the behavior that is it hope. You have the word.
> > > But when monitor_quit is call and the process not exists, this remains in loop and not allow signal.
> > > I try it with Monitor Task and nothing. 
> > > I had to reboot 		 	   		  
> > 
> > Thanks a lot, Ariel, this is quite a bad bug. The concept is good, but
> > can you change the patch a little?
> > 
> > instead of:
> >  if (error != EINTR) {
> >     kill()
> >     if (error == ESRCH || error == ECHILD) {
> >         killed = true;
> >     }
> >  }
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> > I would use:
> >     if (error == ECHILD) {
> >         /* Skip this process */
> >         killed = true;
> >     } else if (error != EINTR) {
> >         /* Keep the block with the kill function around */
> >     }
> > 
> 
> 
> > Also, are you sure about the ESRCH error code? The waitpid man page only
> > mentions ECHILD..
> 
> 
> well, really not is waipit.
> For example 1
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0040): Returned with: 1
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Terminating [pam][7494]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Couldn't kill [pam][7494]: [3] [No such process] *********
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0010): [10][No child processes] while waiting for [pam] ****waitpid
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Terminating [ssh][7493]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Couldn't kill [ssh][7493]: [3] [No such process]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0010): [10][No child processes] while waiting for [ssh]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Terminating [nss][7492]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Couldn't kill [nss][7492]: [3] [No such process]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0010): [10][No child processes] while waiting for [nss]
> (Thu Nov 22 10:17:44 2012) [sssd] [sbus_remove_watch] (0x2000): 0x9ee5f0/0x9f1430
> 
> I think that if the process not exists, is not necessary waitpit. you is agree?
> Based on this, the result would be:
> Example 2 
> Returned with: 1
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Terminating [nss][27350]
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Couldn't kill [nss][27350]: [No such process]
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Terminating [ssh][27349]
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Couldn't kill [ssh][27349]: [No such process]
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Terminating [pam][27348]
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [monitor_quit] (0x0020): Couldn't kill [pam][27348]: [No such process]
> (Thu Nov 22 12:42:37 2012) [sssd] [sbus_remove_watch] (0x2000): 0x237a080/0x237beb0
> 
> 
> otherwise (only ECHILD),  the result would be how the first example.
> 
 
I don't think having that extra line really matters, it's just a DEBUG
message (and only in the case when the configuration is wrong anyway).
 
What about the attached patch? It's the one you sent earlier with a
modification. Would you agree with that version? Would it fix the
problem for you?

Yes, this fix the problem :)
Thanks for comments and your time.

_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20121128/50c79ca7/attachment.html>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list