 |
 |
Hi Lukasz, I agree with you completely that if the client wants to fork() and continue without doing an exec() it becomes quite problematic (as you pointed out in another mail file) and very dificult to keep everything consistent and clean (doable but a whole lot of effort). On the other hand, I was simply pointing out that the complete solution may very well be over-kill. Most (and probably all in root) forks are follwed by exec() with no reference to anything. I can't think of one case in the root framework where that is not the case. If we approach the problem this way, then the solution is fairly straight-forward and I suspect would solve 99.9999% of the use cases. Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lukasz Janyst" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]> Cc: "Brian Bockelman" <[log in to unmask]>; "xrootd-dev" <[log in to unmask]>; "Philippe Canal" <[log in to unmask]>; "Chris Jones" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:45 AM Subject: Re: Fork safety of XrdClient > It's far from being trivial in any case. You also have to consider the > fact that the client is multi-threaded and on fork only one thread is > "copied" so you have to deal with mutexes and memory inconsistencies. > > Lukasz > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Andrew Hanushevsky <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> Yes, but these were opened by the xrdclient framework and they can be >> just >> as easily manager by setting "fd close on exec flag" which is more >> portable >> (unless there is some need to not do an exec -- but then there are a >> whole >> other set of issues that crop up). My point was that there is "general" >> solution here. >> >> Andy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lukasz Janyst" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]> >> Cc: "Brian Bockelman" <[log in to unmask]>; "xrootd-dev" >> <[log in to unmask]>; "Philippe Canal" <[log in to unmask]>; >> "Chris >> Jones" <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:55 AM >> Subject: Re: Fork safety of XrdClient >> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Andrew Hanushevsky >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>> P.S. atfork() is relatively useless since you don't know what >>>> outstanding >>>> descriptors should really be closed at that point. >>> >>> Well, they are all known to the ConnManager, aren't they? >>> >>> Lukasz >>> >> >> >