On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 06:54:42 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> A customer reported an error where a well-known system library, upon loading >> into the JVM process (via a longish indirect dependency chain), changed the >> signal disposition of the process for SIGPIPE to SIG_IGN. This gets >> inherited down to child processes, where it caused child processes to not >> react to SIGPIPE. >> >> The system library is clearly at fault here, but the current workaround we >> recommend (pre-loading libjsig to interpose incorrect signal handling >> requests) is impractical for many customers. It is an okay solution when >> customers themselves have uncommon signal handling requirements; but for >> cases like these, where some version of system library does that, we should >> have a more pragmatic solution. >> >> See further details and arguments for the fix in this mail thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2025-April/144077.html . >> >> The behavior is changed changed such that we set SIGPIPE to SIG_DFL in the >> child processes, and a regression test is added. Note: Regression test >> deliberately prints outs details for other POSIX signals too; this can be >> both a good ad-hoc analysis tool as well as a point where we add more tests >> for other signals, should we ever need to. This patch, however, is >> deliberately restricted to just fixing SIGPIPE. > > Thomas Stuefe has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > fix comments about closeDescriptors It looks like I created a merge conflict by asking to fix these. Another PR https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26667 is also changing them. (At the time the other PR had not started). The least chaos may be created by backing out those changes from this PR. (Unless you like your words better than PR#26667). ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26615#issuecomment-3164396666
