> > What adverse behavior if any will I see on linux if I have a module that forks,
>and immediately calls signal(SIGHUP, SIG_IGN) and signal(SIGCLD, SIG_IGN) when using
>the worker MPM?
>
> It will be propagated to everything you spawn off.
> Most programs presume that they can catch children
> with wait() calls without having to do anything special.
> With ``signal(SIGCLD, SIG_IGN)'' they are in for a
> surprise. POSIX has changed the spec for exec(2) to
> allow applications (operating systems) to reset
> the signal SIGCHLD (SIGCLD) specifically to SIG_DFLT,
> but you cannot rely on it. Instead, do this for every
> program that needs to ignore SIGCHLD:
>
> void ignore_sig() {}
>
> ...
> signal(SIGCHLD, ignore_sig);
> ...
>
> For the history, go back 20 years to the BSD vs. SysV wars.
So as far as apache is concerned, there shouldn't be a problem? Because I grepped the
code and saw places where it was putting signal handlers in place at least for SIGHUP.
I was just wondering if by forking and then ignoring the signal that it might cause a
problem with not having apache's signal handler in place.
Thanks,
Torin
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
