Re: truss issue

From: Martin Cracauer (cracauer_at_cons.org)
Date: 12/15/03

  • Next message: Andy Hilker: "Re: sched_add: KSE 0xc82290c0 is still assigned to a run queue" 
    Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:49:42 -0500
To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>

    [CC'ed Bruce]

    Maxim Konovalov wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:35:31PM +0300:
    > Hello,
    >
    > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, 23:40+0900, Alexander Nedotsukov wrote:
    >
    > > All,
    > >
    > > I found current truss behaviour a bit strange. It coredumps always if
    > > trussed process do without any significant reason for my understanding.
    > > I also confused with comment for commit originally introduced this
    > > functionality
    > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/truss/main.c.diff?r1=1.9&r2=1.10.
    > > I propose patch attached to make truss always return result of trussed
    > > process and do not kill() itself. What do you think about it?
    >
    > As a matter of fact, bin/58970 is a backout of rev.1.10 truss/main.c:
    >
    > ----------------------------
    > revision 1.10
    > date: 1998/08/24 10:17:20; author: cracauer; state: Exp; lines: +9 -1
    > When exiting on SIGINT, exit with signal status
    > =============================================================================
    >
    > But a code does not match the comment and does something funny:
    >
    > @@ -216,6 +217,7 @@
    > break;
    > case S_SIG:
    > fprintf(outfile, "SIGNAL %lu\n", pfs.val);
    > + sigexit = pfs.val;
    > break;
    > case S_EXIT:
    > fprintf (outfile, "process exit, rval = %lu\n", pfs.val);
    > @@ -232,5 +234,11 @@
    > if (ioctl(Procfd, PIOCCONT, val) == -1)
    > warn("PIOCCONT");
    > } while (pfs.why != S_EXIT);
    > + if (sigexit) {
    > + if (sigexit == SIGQUIT)
    > + exit(sigexit);
    > + (void) signal(sigexit, SIG_DFL);
    > + (void) kill(getpid(), sigexit);
    > + }
    > return 0;
    > }
    >
    > Gentlemen, does anobody know what is going on there?

    If you catch a signal like SIGINT or SIGTERM (as opposed to leaving
    the original OS handler to handle it), then you need to reissue that
    same signal to yourself when after your did whatever cleanup you
    want.

    The general reason is that the parent of the process needs to be
    informed that you exited on a signal.

    The specific reason is that if you don't, then a shellscript will not
    be interruptable with SIGINT or SIGTERM.

    I have a lengthly web page about it at
      http://www.cons.org/cracauer/sigint.html

    As for for problem with the coredumps, I assume this is when SIGQUIT
    is used? The proper way of handling this would be to change truss (and
    other transparent wrappers) to ulimit the coredump size to zero and
    then reissue the SIGQUIT signal.

    But the integrety towards the parent needs to be maintained, you must
    not exit without a signal exit status or you get runaway scripts.

    Martin 

    -- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>   http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
 No warranty.    This email is probably produced by one of my cats 
 stepping on the keys. No, I don't have an infinite number of cats.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Andy Hilker: "Re: sched_add: KSE 0xc82290c0 is still assigned to a run queue"