Re: Bogus "no such job" (Re: Preliminary release of 3.0.8 - please test)

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Mar 3,  2:55am, Geoff Wing wrote:
> } Subject: Re: Preliminary release of 3.0.8 - please test
> }
> } Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> } :On Feb 29, 10:33am, Geoff Wing wrote:
> } :} Subject: Re: Preliminary release of 3.0.8 - please test
> } :} After some initial usage, got it into a state of:
> } :} % %
> } :} fg: no such job: 3
> } :} % %%
> } :} fg: no such job: 3
> } :} % fg
> } :} fg: no current job
> } :} % jobs
> } :} %
> } :Hrm.  The job handling code is now identical to 3.1.6-dev-19, so if you
> } :can get 3.0.8 into that state theres a problem for 3.1.6 as well.
> } 
> } I'm thinking that getjob() may need a setcurjob() before it checks curjob.
> 
> Since Sven has been incommunicado for a couple of days, I tried to look
> into this myself in more detail.  The only two places where getjob() is
> called are from bin_kill(), and from bin_fg() *after* the setcurjob()
> that you noted.
> 
> I can believe that a race condition might cause "no such job: 3" once,
> but twice in a row is impossible.  So the only possible answer is that
> the one and only job has STAT_NOPRINT set but *not* STAT_SUBJOB, which
> in turn happens only at exec.c:768 and 806 (in 3.0.8; in 3.1.6-dev-19,
> exec.c:993 and 1031), both in execpline().  See jobs.c:setprevjob(),
> which is called from setcurjob().

The one in 1031 isn't interesting here, it only makes the sub-shells
created for stopped lists not report their jobs (list_pipe_child is
non-zero only in those sub-shells). Leaves us with the one in 993.
This is used to make sure that jobs started for commands which are
not the first one in a pipeline and jobs started from some kind of 
pipeline nesting (e.g. in a loop in a pipeline) are not shown.

Given that, your suggestion:

> Now, it may be that the right solution is to have setprevjob() ignore
> jobs that have STAT_NOPRINT set, but I wouldn't want that to mask some
> more serious job-state problem.  If you have any insights, share 'em.

seems sensible. But... how can such a job survive when the super-job
of the (main) pipeline is dead? I wished I could find a way to
reproduce it.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx