通过滥用终端控制和会话，我设法用3个进程实现了一个可移植的、非轮询的解决方案。

诀窍在于:

process A is started process A creates a pipe P (and never reads from it) process A forks into process B process B creates a new session process B allocates a virtual terminal for that new session process B installs SIGCHLD handler to die when the child exits process B sets a SIGPIPE handler process B forks into process C process C does whatever it needs (e.g. exec()s the unmodified binary or runs whatever logic) process B writes to pipe P (and blocks that way) process A wait()s on process B and exits when it dies

这种方式:

如果进程A死亡:进程B得到一个SIGPIPE并死亡 如果进程B死亡:进程A的wait()返回并死亡，进程C将得到一个SIGHUP(因为当一个连接终端的会话的会话领导者死亡时，前台进程组中的所有进程都会得到一个SIGHUP) 如果进程C死亡:进程B得到一个SIGCHLD并死亡，那么进程a也会死亡

缺点:

进程C不能处理SIGHUP 进程C将在不同的会话中运行 进程C不能使用会话/进程组API，因为这会破坏脆弱的设置 为每一个这样的操作创建一个终端并不是最好的主意

为了完整起见。在macOS上你可以使用kqueue:

void noteProcDeath(
    CFFileDescriptorRef fdref, 
    CFOptionFlags callBackTypes, 
    void* info) 
{
    // LOG_DEBUG(@"noteProcDeath... ");

    struct kevent kev;
    int fd = CFFileDescriptorGetNativeDescriptor(fdref);
    kevent(fd, NULL, 0, &kev, 1, NULL);
    // take action on death of process here
    unsigned int dead_pid = (unsigned int)kev.ident;

    CFFileDescriptorInvalidate(fdref);
    CFRelease(fdref); // the CFFileDescriptorRef is no longer of any use in this example

    int our_pid = getpid();
    // when our parent dies we die as well.. 
    LOG_INFO(@"exit! parent process (pid %u) died. no need for us (pid %i) to stick around", dead_pid, our_pid);
    exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}


void suicide_if_we_become_a_zombie(int parent_pid) {
    // int parent_pid = getppid();
    // int our_pid = getpid();
    // LOG_ERROR(@"suicide_if_we_become_a_zombie(). parent process (pid %u) that we monitor. our pid %i", parent_pid, our_pid);

    int fd = kqueue();
    struct kevent kev;
    EV_SET(&kev, parent_pid, EVFILT_PROC, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, NOTE_EXIT, 0, NULL);
    kevent(fd, &kev, 1, NULL, 0, NULL);
    CFFileDescriptorRef fdref = CFFileDescriptorCreate(kCFAllocatorDefault, fd, true, noteProcDeath, NULL);
    CFFileDescriptorEnableCallBacks(fdref, kCFFileDescriptorReadCallBack);
    CFRunLoopSourceRef source = CFFileDescriptorCreateRunLoopSource(kCFAllocatorDefault, fdref, 0);
    CFRunLoopAddSource(CFRunLoopGetMain(), source, kCFRunLoopDefaultMode);
    CFRelease(source);
}

这个解决方案对我很有效:

将stdin管道传递给子管道-您不必向流中写入任何数据。 Child从stdin无限读取到EOF。EOF表示父节点已经离开。 这是一种万无一失、便于携带的检测父节点何时离开的方法。即使父线程崩溃，操作系统也会关闭管道。

这是针对一个工作者类型的进程，它的存在只有在父进程存在时才有意义。

以防它与任何人相关，当我从c++派生子进程中的JVM实例时，我可以让JVM实例在父进程完成后正确终止的唯一方法是执行以下操作。如果这不是最好的方法，希望有人能在评论中提供反馈。

1)在通过execv启动Java应用程序之前，在fork子进程上调用prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGHUP)

2)在Java应用程序中添加一个shutdown钩子，轮询直到其父PID等于1，然后执行一个硬的Runtime.getRuntime().halt(0)。轮询是通过启动运行ps命令的单独shell来完成的(参见:如何在Linux上的Java或JRuby中找到我的PID ?)

130118年编辑:

这似乎不是一个可靠的解决方案。我仍然在努力理解发生的事情的细微差别，但在屏幕/SSH会话中运行这些应用程序时，有时仍然会遇到孤立的JVM进程。

Instead of polling for the PPID in the Java app, I simply had the shutdown hook perform cleanup followed by a hard halt as above. Then I made sure to invoke waitpid in the C++ parent app on the spawned child process when it was time to terminate everything. This seems to be a more robust solution, as the child process ensures that it terminates, while the parent uses existing references to make sure that its children terminate. Compare this to the previous solution which had the parent process terminate whenever it pleased, and had the children try to figure out if they had been orphaned before terminating.

安装一个陷阱处理程序来捕获SIGINT，如果你的子进程还活着，它就会杀死它，尽管其他的帖子是正确的，它不会捕获SIGKILL。

以独占访问的方式打开一个.lockfile，并让子进程尝试打开它——如果打开成功，子进程应该退出

Historically, from UNIX v7, the process system has detected orphanity of processes by checking a process' parent id. As I say, historically, the init(8) system process is a special process by only one reason: It cannot die. It cannot die because the kernel algorithm to deal with assigning a new parent process id, depends on this fact. when a process executes its exit(2) call (by means of a process system call or by external task as sending it a signal or the like) the kernel reassigns all children of this process the id of the init process as their parent process id. This leads to the most easy test, and most portable way of knowing if a process has got orphan. Just check the result of the getppid(2) system call and if it is the process id of the init(2) process then the process got orphan before the system call.

这种方法会产生两个问题:

first, we have the possibility of changing the init process to any user process, so How can we assure that the init process will always be parent of all orphan processes? Well, in the exit system call code there's a explicit check to see if the process executing the call is the init process (the process with pid equal to 1) and if that's the case, the kernel panics (It should not be able anymore to maintain the process hierarchy) so it is not permitted for the init process to do an exit(2) call. second, there's a race condition in the basic test exposed above. Init process' id is assumed historically to be 1, but that's not warranted by the POSIX approach, that states (as exposed in other response) that only a system's process id is reserved for that purpose. Almost no posix implementation does this, and you can assume in original unix derived systems that having 1 as response of getppid(2) system call is enough to assume the process is orphan. Another way to check is to make a getppid(2) just after the fork and compare that value with the result of a new call. This simply doesn't work in all cases, as both call are not atomic together, and the parent process can die after the fork(2) and before the first getppid(2) system call. The processparent id only changes once, when its parent does anexit(2)call, so this should be enough to check if thegetppid(2)result changed between calls to see that parent process has exit. This test is not valid for the actual children of the init process, because they are always children ofinit(8)`, but you can assume safely these processes as having no parent either (except when you substitute in a system the init process)