https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204340
--- Comment #22 from Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Rick Macklem from comment #20) Rick, thank you very much for the explanation! I knew that nfsd processes were special as they 'lend their stacks to kernel' or something like that. But I failed to realise that that put restrictions in the signals as well. I should also explain that kill -9 was not used to shutdown nfsd or as a replacement for the normal nfsd management. It was used just to demonstrate the problem. I think that originally the problem happened when gdb was used on an nfsd process. I understand that the nfsd processes are special. But the situation seems to be a bit fragile. The current design is old and proven. But perhaps we could switch to using kernel processes or maybe we could mark the nfsd processes with a special flag somehow as to prevent them being killed SIGKILL or stopped with SIGSTOP (i.e. prevent normal signal delivery for all signals). Lastly, just to clarify, should we avoid using debuggers / SIGSTOP with nfsd? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-bugs-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
