Subject: Re: remotely exitting a process
To: Frank van der Linden <>
From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/29/2005 22:16:50
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:00:58PM +0100, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> I'd just set the "sig" argument that is passed by linux_sys_clone to 
> fork1() to 0, iff CLONE_THREAD is set. That way, when a clone/"thread" 
> exits (really a process), it will not send the parent a signal.  
> Glancing at the Linux kernel, it seems like the desired emulated behavior.
> So then, the SIGKILL approach will work, if we ignore the case of 
> processes waiting in the kernel. I bet there are tons of places in the 
> kernel where the code doesn't expect to exit from a ltsleep() by a 
> forced exit, so a change in semantics there would require a lot of code 
> changes.

That does not fix all the problems: the parent still notices the SIGKILL
if it called wait4() on the child. Another idea?

Emmanuel Dreyfus