AR7 AR7 - 1 year ago 159
Linux Question

Calling kill on a child process with SIGTERM terminates parent process, but calling it with SIGKILL keeps the parent alive

This is a continuation of How to prevent SIGINT in child process from propagating to and killing parent process?

In the above question, I learned that

wasn't being bubbled up from child to parent, but rather, is issued to the entire foreground process group, meaning I needed to write a signal handler to prevent the parent from exiting when I hit

I tried to implement this, but here's the problem. Regarding specifically the
syscall I invoke to terminate the child, if I pass in
, everything works as expected, but if I pass in
, it also terminates the parent process, showing
Terminated: 15
in the shell prompt later.

Even though SIGKILL works, I want to use SIGTERM is because it seems just like a better idea in general from what I've read about it giving the process it's signaling to terminate a chance to clean itself up.

The below code is a stripped down example of what I came up with

#include <stdio.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>

pid_t CHILD = 0;
void handle_sigint(int s) {
if (CHILD != 0) {
kill(CHILD, SIGTERM); // <-- SIGKILL works, but SIGTERM kills parent
CHILD = 0;

int main() {
// Set up signal handling
char str[2];
struct sigaction sa = {
.sa_flags = SA_RESTART,
.sa_handler = handle_sigint
sigaction(SIGINT, &sa, NULL);

for (;;) {
printf("1) Open SQLite\n"
"2) Quit\n"
"-> "
scanf("%1s", str);
if (str[0] == '1') {
CHILD = fork();
if (CHILD == 0) {
execlp("sqlite3", "sqlite3", NULL);
printf("exec failed\n");
} else {
} else if (str[0] == '2') {
} else {

My educated guess as to why this is happening would be something intercepts the SIGTERM, and kills the entire process group. Whereas, when I use SIGKILL, it can't intercept the signal so my kill call works as expected. That's just a stab in the dark though.

Could someone explain why this is happening?

As I side note, I'm not thrilled with my
function. Is there a more standard way of killing an interactive child process?

Answer Source

You have too many bugs in your code (from not clearing the signal mask on the struct sigaction) for anyone to explain the effects you are seeing.

Instead, consider the following working example code, say example.c:

#define  _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <errno.h>

/* Child process PID, and atomic functions to get and set it.
 * Do not access the internal_child_pid, except using the set_ and get_ functions.
static pid_t   internal_child_pid = 0;
static inline void  set_child_pid(pid_t p) { __atomic_store_n(&internal_child_pid, p, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);    }
static inline pid_t get_child_pid(void)    { return __atomic_load_n(&internal_child_pid, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); }

static void forward_handler(int signum, siginfo_t *info, void *context)
    const pid_t target = get_child_pid();

    if (target != 0 && info->si_pid != target)
        kill(target, signum);

static int forward_signal(const int signum)
    struct sigaction act;

    memset(&act, 0, sizeof act);
    act.sa_sigaction = forward_handler;
    act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO | SA_RESTART;

    if (sigaction(signum, &act, NULL))
        return errno;

    return 0;

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
    int   status;
    pid_t p, r;

    if (argc < 2 || !strcmp(argv[1], "-h") || !strcmp(argv[1], "--help")) {
        fprintf(stderr, "\n");
        fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s [ -h | --help ]\n", argv[0]);
        fprintf(stderr, "       %s COMMAND [ ARGS ... ]\n", argv[0]);
        fprintf(stderr, "\n");
        return EXIT_FAILURE;

    /* Install signal forwarders. */
    if (forward_signal(SIGINT) ||
        forward_signal(SIGHUP) ||
        forward_signal(SIGTERM) ||
        forward_signal(SIGQUIT) ||
        forward_signal(SIGUSR1) ||
        forward_signal(SIGUSR2)) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Cannot install signal handlers: %s.\n", strerror(errno));
        return EXIT_FAILURE;

    p = fork();
    if (p == (pid_t)-1) {
        fprintf(stderr, "Cannot fork(): %s.\n", strerror(errno));
        return EXIT_FAILURE;

    if (!p) {
        /* Child process. */

        execvp(argv[1], argv + 1);

        fprintf(stderr, "%s: %s.\n", argv[1], strerror(errno));
        return EXIT_FAILURE;

    /* Parent process. Ensure signals are reflected. */        

    /* Wait until the child we created exits. */
    while (1) {
        status = 0;
        r = waitpid(p, &status, 0);

        /* Error? */
        if (r == -1) {
            /* EINTR is not an error. Occurs more often if
               SA_RESTART is not specified in sigaction flags. */
            if (errno == EINTR)

            fprintf(stderr, "Error waiting for child to exit: %s.\n", strerror(errno));
            status = EXIT_FAILURE;

        /* Child p exited? */
        if (r == p) {
            if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
                if (WEXITSTATUS(status))
                    fprintf(stderr, "Command failed [%d]\n", WEXITSTATUS(status));
                    fprintf(stderr, "Command succeeded [0]\n");
            } else
            if (WIFSIGNALED(status))
                fprintf(stderr, "Command exited due to signal %d (%s)\n", WTERMSIG(status), strsignal(WTERMSIG(status)));
                fprintf(stderr, "Command process died from unknown causes!\n");

    /* This is a poor hack, but works in many (but not all) systems.
       Instead of returning a valid code (EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE)
       we return the entire status word from the child process. */
    return status;

Compile it using e.g.

gcc -Wall -O2 example.c -o example

and run using e.g.

./example sqlite3

You'll notice that Ctrl+C does not interrupt sqlite3 -- but then again, it does not even if you were to run sqlite3 directly --; instead, you just see ^C on screen. This is because sqlite3 sets up the terminal in such a way that Ctrl+C does not cause a signal, and is just interpreted as normal input.

You can exit from sqlite3 using the .quit command, or pressing Ctrl+D at the start of a line.

You'll see that the original program will output a Command ... [] line afterwards, before returning you to the command line. Thus, the parent process is not killed/harmed/bothered by the signals.

You can use ps f to look at a tree of your terminal processes, and that way find out the PIDs of the parent and child processes, and send signals to either one to observe what happens.

Note that because SIGSTOP signal cannot be caught, blocked, or ignored, it would be nontrivial to reflect the job control signals (as in when you use Ctrl+Z). For proper job control, the parent process would need to set up a new session and a process group, and temporarily detach from the terminal. That too is quite possible, but a bit beyond the scope here, as it involves quite detailed behaviour of sessions, process groups, and terminals, to manage correctly.

Let's deconstruct the above example program.

The example program itself first installs some signal reflectors, then forks a child process, and that child process executes the command sqlite3. (You can speficy any executable and any parameters strings to the program.)

The internal_child_pid variable, and set_child_pid() and get_child_pid() functions, are used to manage the child process atomically. The __atomic_store_n() and __atomic_load_n() are compiler-provided built-ins; for GCC, see here for details. They avoid the problem of a signal occurring while the child pid is only partially assigned. On some common architectures this cannot occur, but this is intended as a careful example, so atomic accesses are used to ensure only a completely (old or new) value is ever seen. We could avoid using these completely, if we blocked the related signals temporarily during the transition instead. Again, I decided the atomic accesses are simpler, and might be interesting to see in practice.

The forward_handler() function obtains the child process PID atomically, then verifies it is nonzero (that we know we have a child process), and that we are not forwarding a signal sent by the child process (just to ensure we don't cause a signal storm, the two bombarding each other with signals). The various fields in the siginfo_t structure are listed in the man 2 sigaction man page.

The forward_signal() function installs the above handler for the specified signal signum. Note that we first use memset() to clear the entire structure to zeros. Clearing it this way ensures future compatibility, if some of the padding in the structure is converted to data fields.

The .sa_mask field in the struct sigaction is an unordered set of signals. The signals set in the mask are blocked from delivery in the thread that is executing the signal handler. (For the above example program, we can safely say that these signals are blocked while the signal handler is run; it's just that in multithreaded programs, the signals are only blocked in the specific thread that is used to run the handler.)

It is important to use sigemptyset(&act.sa_mask) to clear the signal mask. Simply setting the structure to zero does not suffice, even if it works (probably) in practice on many machines. (I don't know; I haven't even checked. I prefer robust and reliable over lazy and fragile any day!)

The flags used includes SA_SIGINFO because the handler uses the three-argument form (and uses the si_pid field of the siginfo_t). SA_RESTART flag is only there because the OP wished to use it; it simply means that if possible, the C library and the kernel try to avoid returning errno == EINTR error if a signal is delivered using a thread currently blocking in a syscall (like wait()). You can remove the SA_RESTART flag, and add a debugging fprintf(stderr, "Hey!\n"); in a suitable place in the loop in the parent process, to see what happens then.

The sigaction() function will return 0 if there is no error, or -1 with errno set otherwise. The forward_signal() function returns 0 if the forward_handler was assigned successfully, but a nonzero errno number otherwise. Some do not like this kind of return value (they prefer just returning -1 for an error, rather than the errno value itself), but I'm for some unreasonable reason gotten fond of this idiom. Change it if you want, by all means.

Now we get to main().

If you run the program without parameters, or with a single -h or --help parameter, it'll print an usage summary. Again, doing this this way is just something I'm fond of -- getopt() and getopt_long() are more commonly used to parse command-line options. For this kind of trivial program, I just hardcoded the parameter checks.

In this case, I intentionally left the usage output very short. It would really be much better with an additional paragraph about exactly what the program does. These kinds of texts -- and especially comments in the code (explaining the intent, the idea of what the code should do, rather than describing what the code actually does) -- are very important. It's been well over two decades since the first time I got paid to write code, and I'm still learning how to comment -- describe the intent of -- my code better, so I think the sooner one starts working on that, the better.

The fork() part ought to be familiar. If it returns -1, the fork failed (probably due to limits or some such), and it is a very good idea to print out the errno message then. The return value will be 0 in the child, and the child process ID in the parent process.

The execlp() function takes two arguments: the name of the binary file (the directories specified in the PATH environment variable will be used to search for such a binary), as well as an array of pointers to the arguments to that binary. The first argument will be argv[0] in the new binary, i.e. the command name itself.

The execlp(argv[1], argv + 1); call is actually quite simple to parse, if you compare it to the above description. argv[1] names the binary to be executed. argv + 1 is basically equivalent to (char **)(&argv[1]), i.e. it is an array of pointers that start with argv[1] instead of argv[0]. Once again, I'm simply fond of the execlp(argv[n], argv + n) idiom, because it allows one to execute another command specified on the command line without having to worry about parsing a command line, or executing it through a shell (which is sometimes downright undesirable).

The man 7 signal man page explains what happens to signal handlers at fork() and exec(). In short, the signal handlers are inherited over a fork(), but reset to defaults at exec(). Which is, fortunately, exactly what we want, here.

If we were to fork first, and then install the signal handlers, we'd have a window during which the child process already exists, but the parent still has default dispositions (mostly termination) for the signals.

Instead, we could just block these signals using e.g. sigprocmask() in the parent process before forking. Blocking a signal means it is made to "wait"; it will not be delivered until the signal is unblocked. In the child process, the signals could stay blocked, as the signal dispositions are reset to defaults over an exec() anyway. In the parent process, we could then -- or before forking, it does not matter -- install the signal handlers, and finally unblock the signals. This way we would not need the atomic stuff, nor even check if the child pid is zero, since the child pid will be set to its actual value well before any signal can be delivered!

The while loop is basically just a loop around the waitpid() call, until the exact child process we started exits, or something funny happens (the child process vanishes somehow). This loop contains pretty careful error checking, as well as the correct EINTR handing if the signal handlers were to be installed without the SA_RESTART flags.

If the child process we forked exits, we check the exit status and/or reason it died, and print a diagnostic message to standard error.

Finally, the program ends with a horrible hack: instead of returning EXIT_SUCCESS or EXIT_FAILURE, we return the entire status word we obtained with waitpid when the child process exited. The reason I left this in, is because it is sometimes used in practice, when you want to return the same or as similar exit status code as a child process returned with. So, it's for illustration. If you ever find yourself to be in a situation when your program should return the same exit status as a child process it forked and executed, this is still better than setting up machinery to have the process kill itself with the same signal that killed the child process. Just put a prominent comment there if you ever need to use this, and a note in the installation instructions so that those who compile the program on architectures where that might be unwanted, can fix it.

Recommended from our users: Dynamic Network Monitoring from WhatsUp Gold from IPSwitch. Free Download