Re: runit kill runsv

From: Laurent Bercot <>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 18:20:31 +0200

On 27/06/2016 14:02, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote:
> However, couldn't they know whether their child did not cease to run because
> of a signal they sent?

  I'm not sure about runsv, but s6-supervise is a state machine, and the
service state only goes from UP to FINISH when the supervisor receives a
SIGCHLD. The state does not change at all after the supervisor sent a
signal: it sent a signal, yeah, so what - it's entirely up to the daemon
what to do with that signal. There's an exception for SIGSTOP because
stopped daemons won't die before you SIGCONT them, but that's it; even
sending SIGKILL won't make s6-supervise change states. Of course, if you
send SIGKILL, you're going to receive a SIGCHLD very soon, and *that* will
trigger a state change.

> No, but neither can the admin enforce this policy automatically and
> portably using current supervisors. Other than the "dedicated user/login
> class/cgroup" scheme proposed by Jan (which can be considered best
> practice anyway), it'd be nice if they exposed this somehow (hand-waving
> SMOP ahead: duplicate the pid field in ./status and remove the working
> copy only when receiving a down signal).

  No need to duplicate the pid field: if s6-supervise dies before the service
goes down, the pid field in supervise/status is left unchanged, so it still
contains the correct pid. I suspect runsv works the same.

  I guess a partial mitigation strategy could be "if supervise/status exists
and its pid field is nonzero when the supervisor starts, warn that an
instance of the daemon may still be running and print its pid". Do you
think it would be worth the effort?

Received on Mon Jun 27 2016 - 16:20:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC