-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
Introduce process file descriptor (pidfd) based process monitoring for Linux #125
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
iCharlesHu
wants to merge
7
commits into
swiftlang:main
Choose a base branch
from
iCharlesHu:charles/linux-pidfd-monitor
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
165eca8
Introduce process file descriptor (pidfd) based process monitoring fo…
iCharlesHu 199eb72
Use signal handler for process state monitoring on Linux kernel lower…
iCharlesHu 086c8d8
Disable testPlatformOptionsRunAsUser on CI if we don't have privilege…
iCharlesHu bbb5432
Remove unused consoleBehavior from Execution
iCharlesHu fbc0f2c
Add PlatformConformance in tests to ensure platform specifc types fol…
iCharlesHu 89e5d2f
Disable testPlatformOptionsRunAsUser until we can resolve CI filure i…
iCharlesHu a2de33f
Prob whether waitid supports P_PIDFD instead of checking for Linux ke…
iCharlesHu File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you make this type move-only and incorporate the
close()
operation intodeinit
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Closing might involve closing FDs right? Which might be an asynchronous and throwing operation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That
close()
can fail at all is an unfortunate weird corner of POSIX that I personally tend to ignore, because a failure inclose()
other thanEINTR
/EAGAIN
is basically non-recoverable. What are you even supposed to do? What can a user do to fix the problem? Generally nothing.So I just about always just drop a
close()
failure on the floor. </hottake>(As for asynchronous, it's a blocking operation in userland but it can't fail to make forward progress in this case because there's no network I/O involved unless we're doing something really wonky.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We've had this discussion in another place (here?). We ended up not calling
close
, but asserting thatclose
has already been called indeinit
.But it does seem like a design people are going to reach for repeatedly. I wonder if we can put our thought process down somewhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that it is a weirdness; nevertheless, we need to handle it and most likely surface it to the user. We shouldn't just swallow those errors.
This is not entirely true. If you are using io_uring you can asynchronously listen for the subprocess termination with
pidfd
andsignalfd
via io_uring. We need to account for changes in the underlying I/O system where closing can become asynchronous otherwise we will lock ourselves in a corner API-wise.The only pattern that keeps us flexible is a
with-style
based approach.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ProcessIdentifier is only ever provided as a parameter to a closure called within a with-style function, except for runDetached. If we remove the latter from the API, there's no place where ProcessIdentifier needs to be used as a handle that needs to be closed and therefore no reason it needs to be responsible for lifetime management.