Re: unkillable process ?
Re: unkillable process ?
- Subject: Re: unkillable process ?
- From: Justin Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 17:11:10 -0700
On Sunday, Apr 6, 2003, at 16:30 US/Pacific, Paul Ripke wrote:
On Sunday, Apr 6, 2003, at 12:01 Australia/Sydney, Jean-Edouard BABIN
wrote:
Justin Walker icrit:
[snip]
Odd. I have one too:
ksh$ ps alx | grep Z
UID PID PPID CPU PRI NI VSZ RSS WCHAN STAT TT
TIME COMMAND
0 509 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Z con-
0:00.00 (scselect)
Just a hunch, but I'd guess that the real PPID isn't zero. I'd say ps
is
reading a struct which has been nulled, and there's another copy of the
real PPID elsewhere. UTSL...
This was mentioned earlier in this thread. When a process is inherited
by 'init' (PID 1), which happens when the parent process exits before
the child, the child's "parent PID" entry in its proc table is cleared
(init really isn't its parent; the child is just "attached" to init so
that it can be 'reaped'). This is the last step in cleaning up after a
process exit, and is something that a process can't do for itself
(unlike that cute box that, when you turn it on, has a hand that comes
out, turns the switch off, and retreats back into the box).
This general behavior has been around for a while, I believe [Unix
lore]. I haven't checked other source to be sure.
Regards,
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large *
Institute for General Semantics | If you're not confused,
| You're not paying attention
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*
_______________________________________________
darwin-kernel mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwin-kernel
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.