bhyve: monitor: forward SIGTERM to the VM process
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by novel on Tue, Aug 11, 4:56 PM.

Details

Reviewers

bnovkov
markj

Group Reviewers

bhyve

Commits

rG1f3aeb3ea5a5: bhyve: monitor: detect monitor exit

Summary

Currently, sending SIGTERM to the bhyve process triggers ACPI poweroff
for a VM. However, when running bhyve in monitor mode (-M), there are
two processes: the monitor process and the actual VM process. Sending
SIGTERM to the VM process works as before -- it powers off the VM.
But sending SIGTERM to the monitor process just kills the monitor process,
leaving the stale VM process running.

Thus, forward the SIGTERM signal from the monitor process to the
VM process for consistency.

Diff Detail

Repository

rG FreeBSD src repository

Lint

Lint Skipped

Unit

Tests Skipped

Build Status

Buildable 75519
Build 72402: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

novel created this revision.Tue, Aug 11, 4:56 PM

Herald added a reviewer: bhyve. · View Herald TranscriptTue, Aug 11, 4:56 PM

Herald added subscribers: bcran, rgrimes, imp. · View Herald Transcript

novel requested review of this revision.Tue, Aug 11, 4:56 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B75519: Diff 183888.Tue, Aug 11, 4:56 PM

Thanks, I've run into this problem too.

Rather than forwarding signals, why not have a pipe shared between the two processes? The child process can use it to detect when the parent goes away, and exit automatically. That should be simpler and will work for all cases where the parent exits (assertion failure, SIGKILL, etc.).

In D58788#1348916, @markj wrote:

Thanks, I've run into this problem too.

Rather than forwarding signals, why not have a pipe shared between the two processes? The child process can use it to detect when the parent goes away, and exit automatically. That should be simpler and will work for all cases where the parent exits (assertion failure, SIGKILL, etc.).

+1 for this approach, it's more robust than forwarding signals. I was planning to implement this pipe-based fix soon, but if you have the time and will to do so please go for it!

In D58788#1348937, @bnovkov wrote:

In D58788#1348916, @markj wrote:

Thanks, I've run into this problem too.

Rather than forwarding signals, why not have a pipe shared between the two processes? The child process can use it to detect when the parent goes away, and exit automatically. That should be simpler and will work for all cases where the parent exits (assertion failure, SIGKILL, etc.).

+1 for this approach, it's more robust than forwarding signals. I was planning to implement this pipe-based fix soon, but if you have the time and will to do so please go for it!