Hi;
Don't use fork()/exec() directly with manual signal connection; use
GSubprocess from GIO, instead, which is a much better API, it's safe, and
it's likely more comprehensive in handling additional cases.
Ciao,
Emmanuele.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 at 01:30, rbd <r...@soest.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I have a few questions relating to the use of fork/exec within a gtk3
>
> program. Briefly, (i) can this be made to work at all, and (ii) should I
>
> perform any specific operations related to disconnecting from gtk within
>
> the child process code of my gtk parent in the very brief interval between
>
> the fork() and the exec()? Following are details of my situation which I
>
> believe is extremely simple, and I want to use the very simplest working
>
> solution.
>
>
>
> I am porting someone else's old X11/Motif process management GUI to gtk3.
>
> It makes extensive use of fork/exec and a SIGCHLD signal handler (which
>
> waitpid(.. WNOHANG)s on terminated children) to manage somewhere between 5
>
> and 20 or so child processes. These children do NOT have any GUI and are
>
> background data logging processes which read serial and/or network data
>
> sources and write reformatted output to serial, network and/or disk
>
> destinations. The management GUI is a simple tabular display with one row
>
> per child that shows whether each child is running or not and has a
>
> clickable button allowing the operator to start/stop/restart that
>
> particular child. The manager needs to remain running for time periods as
>
> long as 3 months.
>
>
>
> Porting this to gtk3 seemed trivial until I started reading these archives
>
> yesterday and encountered numerous warnings about using fork/exec with
>
> gtk. It's unclear whether or not they apply to me since my child processes
>
> will have absolutely no GUI of any kind (not gtk, X11 or anything else)
>
> either related to or even completely independent of the gtk GUI running in
>
> the manager process. Opinion about this does not seem to be uniform: some
>
> people say that fork/exec works just fine if you have a simple scenario,
>
> others give dire warnings and recommend more complicated systems of forks
>
> within threads, use of various glib spawn/task functions, etc. I do not
>
> want to (i) expend more effort than is truly needed, or (ii) unnecessarily
>
> burden the code with complexity specific to the needs of gtk/glib that
>
> will all have to be unraveled and redone ten years from now when the
>
> inevitable next-generation API displaces gtk. (No offense intended, but
>
> I've seen this movie a few times. ;-> )
>
>
>
> Following is the existing fork-to-exec segment of the child code in the
>
> X11/Motif manager. Only a couple things of interest take place here: (i)
>
> an Xt input handler process registered at program startup via
>
> XtAppAddInput() which was periodically reading some non-X11 file
>
> descriptor is deregistered, and (ii) a bunch of other non-stdio file
>
> descriptors are closed (presumably including the X11 display socket). The
>
> latter was written as a brute force loop that just tries to close
>
> everything in sight whether it might have been open or not, even though
>
> the manager seems to be opening only a couple of other file descriptors
>
> outside of X11.
>
>
>
> pid= fork();
>
> if (pid == 0) {
>
> XtRemoveInput(xtinputid);
>
> for (i= 3; i < 20; i++)
>
> (void) close(i);
>
> execlp("yada", "yada", "yada", 0);
>
> exit(-1);
>
> }
>
>
>
> Given that I want the gtk/gdk/etc. library code running within my parent
>
> manager process to remain ignorant of all children and continue operating
>
> as if there were none, my more particular questions with regard to this
>
> child process code are:
>
>
>
> (1) Do I need to deregister the gtk input handler that I will be
>
> substituting for the old Xt input handler?
>
>
>
> (2) Do I need to explicitly call any kind of gtk shutdown or main loop
>
> exit function or should I very clearly avoid doing so?
>
>
>
> (3) Should I do the same kind of brute force file descriptor closedown as
>
> the original code? Analogously to X11, I have to think this would close at
>
> least one gtk-opened decriptor, which might be something that I should
>
> definitely either do or NOT do.
>
>
>
> (4) I read one archive reference that said children should always use
>
> _exit() rather than exit() in this context. Is that true, and if so does
>
> that apply only to the cleanup after a failed execlp() in this fragment or
>
> should it be done for all exit instances within the child's own source
>
> code as well? This processing system includes dozens of child process
>
> programs and doing the latter would be a real pain (and perhaps have other
>
> unwanted consequences for the child).
>
>
>
> My gut instinct is that given that the exec() will give the child process
>
> an essentially clean slate EXCEPT for inheritance of open descriptors, I
>
> probably do want to close all non-stdio descriptors one way or another
>
> prior to the exec -- the essential question is how to do this in a way
>
> that causes no impact whatsoever to the gtk ennvironment of the manager
>
> parent.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Roger Davis
>
> Univ. of Hawaii
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
>
> gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
>
>
_______________________________________________
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
