Of course this goes to a General Resolution
Of course this goes to a General Resolution
Posted Feb 19, 2014 11:06 UTC (Wed) by mchapman (subscriber, #66589)In reply to: Of course this goes to a General Resolution by HelloWorld
Parent article: The Debian technical committee vote concludes
> The kernel will panic if PID 1 crashes, so it should be as simple as possible. Now, systemd never actually crashed on any of my systems, but why take the risk if you don't have to?
I think the alternative complicates things.
If systemd running as PID 2 and marked as a child subreaper were to crash, then its children would be inherited by PID 1. Even if PID 1 were to restart systemd, the new systemd wouldn't be able wait on those reparented processes any more. PID 1 would be responsible for reaping them when they exit, and PID 1 would need to pass on notifications to that effect to the systemd process (so that it could re-exec them or whatever).
In short, I think using a separate child subreaper brings as many problems as it solves.