From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: environment: Properly handle SIGINT. Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:53:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87pouhbd46.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <871t6x14kq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59623) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajvDJ-00082A-O8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:53:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajvDI-00071j-Ex for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:53:41 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]:33593) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ajvDI-00071c-9d for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:53:40 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s5so66088174qkd.0 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:53:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Thompson, David wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrot= e: >> David Thompson skribis: >> >>> * tests/guix-environment-container.sh: Remove obsolete test. >> >> [...] >> >>> -if guix environment --bootstrap --container \ >>> - --ad-hoc bootstrap-binaries -- kill -SEGV 2 >>> -then false; >>> -else >>> - test $? -gt 127 >>> -fi >> >> This test was added in light of . We want to >> make sure we don=E2=80=99t lose that property. >> >> What happens exactly when a signal is sent to PID 1? I would expect >> that its parent process, which is outside the container in a waitpid >> call, would simply get its exit value in the normal way, and thus, >> changing =E2=80=9C2=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9C1=E2=80=9D in this test should = do the trick. Am I na=C3=AFve? :-) > > The problem is that a process within the container cannot just kill > PID 1 since its the init process and the kernel protects it, so > changing "2" to "1" doesn't work. The exit status of the environment > command is 0 in that case because PID 1 never received the signal and > thus exits normally. > > I'll try to come up with a replacement test case, thanks for giving me > the context in which it was added. (I should've used 'git blame' > first.) Coming up with a replacement test has proved very difficult. Since PID 1 is unkillable, I'm having a hell of time coming up with a clever way to kill a Guile process via a signal. - Dave