假设我有一个进程,它只生成一个子进程。现在,当父进程由于某种原因(正常或不正常,通过kill, ^C,断言失败或其他任何原因)退出时,我希望子进程死亡。如何正确地做到这一点?


关于stackoverflow的一些类似问题:

(前面问过)当父进程退出的时候,我怎么能让子进程退出呢? (稍后问)用fork()创建的子进程会在父进程被杀死时自动被杀死吗?


关于Windows的stackoverflow也有类似的问题:

如何在Windows中自动销毁子进程? 当父进程被杀死时,杀死子进程


当前回答

一些海报已经提到了管道和kqueue。事实上,你也可以通过socketpair()调用创建一对连接的Unix域套接字。套接字类型应该是SOCK_STREAM。

Let us suppose you have the two socket file descriptors fd1, fd2. Now fork() to create the child process, which will inherit the fds. In the parent you close fd2 and in the child you close fd1. Now each process can poll() the remaining open fd on its own end for the POLLIN event. As long as each side doesn't explicitly close() its fd during normal lifetime, you can be fairly sure that a POLLHUP flag should indicate the other's termination (no matter clean or not). Upon notified of this event, the child can decide what to do (e.g. to die).

#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <poll.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
    int sv[2];        /* sv[0] for parent, sv[1] for child */
    socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, sv);

    pid_t pid = fork();

    if ( pid > 0 ) {  /* parent */
        close(sv[1]);
        fprintf(stderr, "parent: pid = %d\n", getpid());
        sleep(100);
        exit(0);

    } else {          /* child */
        close(sv[0]);
        fprintf(stderr, "child: pid = %d\n", getpid());

        struct pollfd mon;
        mon.fd = sv[1];
        mon.events = POLLIN;

        poll(&mon, 1, -1);
        if ( mon.revents & POLLHUP )
            fprintf(stderr, "child: parent hung up\n");
        exit(0);
    }
}

您可以尝试编译上面的概念验证代码,并在./a这样的终端中运行它。&。你有大约100秒的时间来尝试通过各种信号杀死父PID,否则它就会退出。在任何一种情况下,您都应该看到消息“child: parent hung up”。

与使用SIGPIPE处理程序的方法相比,该方法不需要尝试write()调用。

这种方法也是对称的,即进程可以使用相同的通道来监视彼此的存在。

这个解决方案只调用POSIX函数。我在Linux和FreeBSD中尝试了这个方法。我认为它应该在其他unix上工作,但我还没有真正测试过。

参见:

Linux手册中的unix(7), FreeBSD的unix(4), poll(2), socketpair(2), Linux上的socket(7)。

其他回答

我认为不可能保证只使用标准POSIX调用。就像现实生活一样,一旦孩子被孕育出来,它就有了自己的生命。

父进程可以捕获大多数可能的终止事件,并尝试在此时终止子进程,但总有一些无法捕获。

例如,没有进程可以捕获SIGKILL。当内核处理这个信号时,它将杀死指定的进程,而不通知该进程。

扩展一下类比——唯一的另一种标准方式是,当孩子发现自己不再有父母时自杀。

使用prctl(2)有一种linux独有的方法——请参阅其他答案。

如果父母去世,孤儿的PPID变为1 -你只需要检查你自己的PPID。 在某种程度上,这就是上面提到的轮询。 这是它的外壳部分:

check_parent () {
      parent=`ps -f|awk '$2=='$PID'{print $3 }'`
      echo "parent:$parent"
      let parent=$parent+0
      if [[ $parent -eq 1 ]]; then
        echo "parent is dead, exiting"
        exit;
      fi
}


PID=$$
cnt=0
while [[ 1 = 1 ]]; do
  check_parent
  ... something
done

即使7年过去了,我刚刚遇到这个问题,因为我正在运行SpringBoot应用程序,需要在开发期间启动webpack-dev-server,并需要在后端进程停止时杀死它。

我尝试使用Runtime.getRuntime()。addShutdownHook,但它在Windows 10上工作,但在Windows 7上不工作。

我已经将其更改为使用一个专门的线程来等待进程退出或用于InterruptedException,这似乎在两个Windows版本上都正确工作。

private void startWebpackDevServer() {
    String cmd = isWindows() ? "cmd /c gradlew webPackStart" : "gradlew webPackStart";
    logger.info("webpack dev-server " + cmd);

    Thread thread = new Thread(() -> {

        ProcessBuilder pb = new ProcessBuilder(cmd.split(" "));
        pb.redirectOutput(ProcessBuilder.Redirect.INHERIT);
        pb.redirectError(ProcessBuilder.Redirect.INHERIT);
        pb.directory(new File("."));

        Process process = null;
        try {
            // Start the node process
            process = pb.start();

            // Wait for the node process to quit (blocking)
            process.waitFor();

            // Ensure the node process is killed
            process.destroyForcibly();
            System.setProperty(WEBPACK_SERVER_PROPERTY, "true");
        } catch (InterruptedException | IOException e) {
            // Ensure the node process is killed.
            // InterruptedException is thrown when the main process exit.
            logger.info("killing webpack dev-server", e);
            if (process != null) {
                process.destroyForcibly();
            }
        }

    });

    thread.start();
}

如果你无法修改子进程,你可以尝试以下方法:

int pipes[2];
pipe(pipes)
if (fork() == 0) {
    close(pipes[1]); /* Close the writer end in the child*/
    dup2(pipes[0], STDIN_FILENO); /* Use reader end as stdin (fixed per  maxschlepzig */
    exec("sh -c 'set -o monitor; child_process & read dummy; kill %1'")
}

close(pipes[0]); /* Close the reader end in the parent */

这将在启用作业控制的shell进程中运行子进程。子进程在后台生成。shell等待换行符(或EOF),然后终止子进程。

当父进程死亡时——不管是什么原因——它将关闭管道的一端。子shell将从read中获得一个EOF,并继续杀死后台的子进程。

Historically, from UNIX v7, the process system has detected orphanity of processes by checking a process' parent id. As I say, historically, the init(8) system process is a special process by only one reason: It cannot die. It cannot die because the kernel algorithm to deal with assigning a new parent process id, depends on this fact. when a process executes its exit(2) call (by means of a process system call or by external task as sending it a signal or the like) the kernel reassigns all children of this process the id of the init process as their parent process id. This leads to the most easy test, and most portable way of knowing if a process has got orphan. Just check the result of the getppid(2) system call and if it is the process id of the init(2) process then the process got orphan before the system call.

这种方法会产生两个问题:

first, we have the possibility of changing the init process to any user process, so How can we assure that the init process will always be parent of all orphan processes? Well, in the exit system call code there's a explicit check to see if the process executing the call is the init process (the process with pid equal to 1) and if that's the case, the kernel panics (It should not be able anymore to maintain the process hierarchy) so it is not permitted for the init process to do an exit(2) call. second, there's a race condition in the basic test exposed above. Init process' id is assumed historically to be 1, but that's not warranted by the POSIX approach, that states (as exposed in other response) that only a system's process id is reserved for that purpose. Almost no posix implementation does this, and you can assume in original unix derived systems that having 1 as response of getppid(2) system call is enough to assume the process is orphan. Another way to check is to make a getppid(2) just after the fork and compare that value with the result of a new call. This simply doesn't work in all cases, as both call are not atomic together, and the parent process can die after the fork(2) and before the first getppid(2) system call. The processparent id only changes once, when its parent does anexit(2)call, so this should be enough to check if thegetppid(2)result changed between calls to see that parent process has exit. This test is not valid for the actual children of the init process, because they are always children ofinit(8)`, but you can assume safely these processes as having no parent either (except when you substitute in a system the init process)