Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mejac!orchard.la.locus.com!fafnir.la.locus.com!fafnir.la.locus.com!richard
From: richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Sending Signals to Zombies
Message-ID: <richard.672629227@fafnir.la.locus.com>
Date: 26 Apr 91 01:27:07 GMT
References: <130312@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Lines: 28

rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes:

>There seems to be a cultural difference (BSD vs SV) on the
>meaning of sending signals to zombie processes; System V
>allows it while BSD does not.

>What does POSIX say about this, and what are some of the issues?

The most direct statement in POSIX on this is in the rationale rather
than the standard itself; so to make life easy, I'll just quote that.

	In B.3.3.2:
	Existing implementations vary on the result of a kill()
	with pid indicating an inactive process (a terminated
	process that has not yet been waited for by its parent)....
	Since this standard's definition of _process_lifetime_
	covers inactive processes, the [ESRCH] error as described
	is inappropriate in this case.  In particular this means
	that an application cannot have a parent process check
	for termination of a particular child with kill()....
	this can be done reliably with waitpid().

BSD will have to change to become conformant in this regard.

Richard M. Mathews			Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
richard@locus.com			Brivu Latviju  = Free Latvia
lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu		Eesti vabaks   = Free Estonia
...!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard