Misbehaving exit status from Hotspot

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Sun Jul 1 12:16:14 UTC 2018

On 29/06/2018 7:50 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 01:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> To be clear, I think the libc advise on this topic is just wrong-headed:
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Termination-Signals.html 
>> "Such a handler should end by specifying the default action for the 
>> signal that happened and then reraising it; this will cause the 
>> program to terminate with that signal, as if it had not had a handler."
>> It's not even self-consistent because it states this for the 
>> "termination signals" but when caught some of these signals 
>> intentionally do not trigger termination. So following that advice for 
>> SIGQUIT would be completely wrong for the JVM!
> The advice seems appropriate to me for handlers that lead to 
> termination, as generally intended for these signals.  SIGQUIT doesn't 
> do that for the JVM, so the advice doesn't apply.  

That's somewhat selective. The document claims these are all termination 
signals and should be handled the same way.

> SIGTERM appears to do 
> so.  So why not preserve in the information that the process was shut 
> down by SIGTERM by reraising the signal?  This might confer useful 
> information to the caller.

The information is already preserved in the exit code of the JVM when it 
calls exit().

There's no justification for changing 20+ years of behaviour here - the 
JVM is doing nothing wrong.


> Thanks,
> Florian

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list