httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: oddity w/SIGHUP (related to PR#429)
Date Tue, 22 Apr 1997 02:45:51 GMT
Wait until you see graceful restart take 5 before you answer this ... but
do you want me to also try to include the fix for the race condition in
make_child (if the child receives a HUP before it has removed the
restart() handler then the child becomes a parent)?  This isn't as trivial
(because you have to deal with systems that don't deliver signals reliably
in order to get it right).  Although hrm, I could hack a quickie global
parent_pid in http_main.c and just do a quick getpid() check in the
restart handlers.  That would probably be safe enough for 1.2.


On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >That is weird.  Can you give it a try with my graceful patch installed?
> >Or just take the little hunk that adds SIGALRM to the block-mask of the
> >hup handler?  (It's in set_signals).
> >
> >I'm going to change the graceful patch so that:
> >
> >- restart and graceful_restart disable SIGHUP and SIGUSR1 immediately
> >- set_signals blocks SIGHUP, SIGUSR1, and SIGALRM inside the hup and usr1
> >  handlers
> I looked at this stuff over the weekend and I am convinced that the
> sigaction calls should have their masks set up as you describe above.
> I also think this is a safe change and should be made now, rather than
> after 1.2b9.
> ....Roy

View raw message