Subject: Re: remotely exitting a process
To: Frank van der Linden <>
From: Jaromir Dolecek <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/04/2005 13:16:18
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:21:08AM +0100, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote
> >That does not fix all the problems: the parent still notices the SIGKILL
> >if it called wait4() on the child. Another idea?
> Processes that die because of a signal go through sigexit(). You can 
> either change the process structure to have a p_exitcode, which, if != 
> -1, replaces the normal exitsig value passed to exit1() in that 
> function. p_exitcode would be set to the exit value passed to 
> linux_sys_exit_pgroup().
> Or, perhaps cleaner since it avoids changing the process structure, you 
> can create an emul_sigexithook, which may be NULL, but if it isn't, it 
> will return the value passed to exit1 (i.e. the value set in 
> linux_sys_exit_pgroup()).

Perhaps we could just use a new process flag for that - it's only
necessary to reset exitsig to 0 for exit_group() in sigexit(), introducing
a function hook for that seems overkill.

Jaromir Dolecek <>  
-=- We can walk our road together if our goals are all the same;     -=-
-=- We can run alone and free if we pursue a different aim.          -=-