Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Kill processes, not process groups

[pinskia@gmail.com]

> On May 14, 2015, at 12:59 AM, Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:
> 
> Killing process groups for interruption doesn't make any sense. Say we
> have a two-process group [A B], where A is the leader.  If we attach to
> A and use "interrupt", we accidentally kill B. If we attach to B,
> "interrupt" does nothing. Why wouldn't we just signal A?
> 
> This problem is worse in the gdbserver case. Locally, we use
> pass_signal, not interrupt, for C-c, and pass_signal does the right
> thing. But in the remote case, we have nothing but interrupt, and that
> doesn't seem to do users intend.
> 
> commit 8d096e713e46f00bc8bf55743288a24f6222021f
> Author: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> Date:   Wed May 13 23:58:24 2015 -0700
> 
>    Kill the process we're dealing with, not the whole group
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c b/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> index 4da11c6..8a725fa 100644
> --- a/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> +++ b/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> @@ -4904,7 +4904,7 @@ linux_request_interrupt (void)
> 
>   /* Send a SIGINT to the process group.  This acts just like the user
>      typed a ^C on the controlling terminal.  */
> -  kill (-signal_pid, SIGINT);
> +  kill (signal_pid, SIGINT);

Your patch did not update the comment though. So it raises the question which is the correct behavior. 

Thanks,
Andrew

> }
> 
> /* Copy LEN bytes from inferior's auxiliary vector starting at OFFSET
>