GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — kill_after_timeout watchdog is not able to kill the nested git processes · Issue #895 · gitpython-developers/GitPython

kill_after_timeout watchdog is not able to kill the nested git processes #895

New issue
Copy link
New issue
Copy link
Closed as not planned
Bug
Closed as not planned
kill_after_timeout watchdog is not able to kill the nested git processes#895
Bug
Copy link
Labels
acknowledgedhelp wantedtag.leaks

Description

@eekwong
eekwong
opened on Jul 17, 2019
Issue body actions

I am using GitPython 2.0.2.

While having kill_after_timeout in the pull()
e.g. g.pull(kill_after_timeout=10)

Before the process killing, there were four processes running:

  1. git pull
  2. git fetch
  3. git-remote-http
  4. git fetch-pack

After the timeout, (3) and (4) remained.

Should _kill_process() be recursively called like the following?

                    if local_pid.isdigit():
                        _kill_process(local_pid) # is it necessary?
                        child_pids.append(int(local_pid))

Activity

  1. Byron
    added
    acknowledged
    help wanted
    tag.leaks
    on Jul 21, 2019
  2. Byron commented on Jul 21, 2019

    @Byron
    Byron
    on Jul 21, 2019
    Member
    More actions

    Thanks a lot for sharing your findings!
    Indeed, the way it kills the process is SIGKILL, which as far as I know can/will(?) leave child processes detached. So killing the entire process tree seems to be the right thing to do right now. In theory, making recursive calls could work.

    Stray processes could be a real issue in long running processes :/.

  3. nandoabreu commented on Nov 20, 2024

    @nandoabreu
    nandoabreu
    on Nov 20, 2024
    More actions

    Hello! Any news on this?
    I am using v3.1.43 and could reproduce when my network connection was down.
    I also could not treat the Exceptions (already catching 3).

  4. Byron commented on Nov 20, 2024

    @Byron
    Byron
    on Nov 20, 2024
    Member
    More actions

    From what I can tell, Eliah has collected a lot of probably related information, which may be leveraged into a fix. From what I know, nobody is specifically working on that though.

  5. Byron
    added the
    Bug
    issue type on Jul 20, 2026
  6. Byron
    closed this as not plannedon Jul 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    acknowledgedhelp wantedtag.leaks

    Type

    Bug

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
      Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.