Raffaello D. Di Napoli wrote in <[email protected]>: |On 3/2/22 03:50, Michael Conrad wrote: |> On 3/2/22 02:45, Raffaello D. Di Napoli wrote: |>> On 3/1/22 16:57, Denys Vlasenko wrote: |>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:39 PM Denys Vlasenko |>>> <[email protected]> wrote: ... |>>>> Let's go with a solution with fd opened to /proc/PID? |>> |>> I’d think simplifying the implementation and bringing it closer to |>> coreutils’ would be more in line with BB’s goals, instead of making ... |> It might be worth mentioning that busybox can't conform to coreutils |> unless it does remain the parent process, because of this detail: |> (from coreutils' timeout man page) |> |>> If the command times out, and --preserve-status is not set, then |>> exit with status 124. Otherwise, exit with the status of COMMAND. | |Well, yes. I already pointed out in an earlier message I see a rewrite |as unavoidable, to really fix the reported issue. By “simplifying the
I just want to point out that FreeBSD has a small timeout implementation, with busybox environment (as i know it, argv parse etc) it could be even smaller. |implementation” now I meant redoing it so that it aligns not only with |coreutils, but also with what _every single person who’s looked at it in |this thread_ expected, i.e. the conventional parent/child relationship |rather than a reverse grandchild/parent as it is today. Maybe then adding PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER prctl(2) (already used in busybox) would be a suggestion. ... --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
