You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Micah Anderson <mi...@riseup.net> on 2010/04/01 17:52:41 UTC

meaning of child cleanup

Since upgrading to the new spamassassin, I'm seeing the following two
log entries related to cleanup of child PIDs:

1. Apr  1 08:26:38 spamd2 spamd[396]: spamd: handled cleanup of child
pid [31720] due to SIGCHLD: INTERRUPTED, signal 2 (0002)

2. Mar 28 18:00:15 spamd2 spamd[17562]: spamd: handled cleanup of child
pid [391] due to SIGCHLD: exit 0

If I were to guess, the second one seems to be when things are acting
right, the first one seems problematic, and I'm trying to determine what
causes it. The logs for that process aren't particularly interesting,
they are just like any others, with various prefork childstate entries:

Mar 28 06:25:35 spamd2 spamd[396]: prefork: child states: II
Mar 28 06:25:36 spamd2 spamd[396]: prefork: child states: IB

but nothing particularly egregious looking. 

Can someone help me clarify what causes an INTERRUPTED signal? Should I
worry about it? Should I ignore it in logcheck?

thanks!
micah



-- 
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - J Krishnamurti 


Re: meaning of child cleanup

Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:52 -0400, Micah Anderson wrote:
> Since upgrading to the new spamassassin, I'm seeing the following two
> log entries related to cleanup of child PIDs:
> 
> 1. Apr  1 08:26:38 spamd2 spamd[396]: spamd: handled cleanup of child
> pid [31720] due to SIGCHLD: INTERRUPTED, signal 2 (0002)

See bug 6304 [1] comment 1.

 "The message now includes the exit status of a finished child process.
  Previously child process crashes or other abnormal terminations
  were indistinguishable from regular child process terminations [...]"

> Can someone help me clarify what causes an INTERRUPTED signal? Should I
> worry about it? Should I ignore it in logcheck?

Same bug, comment 7. The "interrupted" string has been lower-cased
already.

  guenther


[1] https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6304

-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}