A pid is only a name for a process until that process is reaped; after that
the kernel may hand the same number to something else. The handle kept the
number, so a stop or a kill issued during shutdown — which every session
outcome reaches — could land on a process nobody meant, and the one aimed at
the workload would have been a SIGKILL.
The registry now clears the flag as it delivers the exit, in the same call, and
nothing signals a pid whose flag is down. Waiting for the workload on the way
out takes the same answer: already reaped is already gone.
There is a window left, between the reap and the delivery, and closing it
entirely needs a handle the kernel keeps rather than a number. Recorded rather
than papered over.
Three problems in the shutdown and reaping paths, all of them found in review.
Reaping and waiting cannot be two mechanisms. `waitpid(-1, ...)` collects any
child, so the reaper and a caller waiting on its own child race for the same
status, and whichever loses gets nothing — losing the workload's exit, which is
the one thing this component exists to report. The reaper is now the only
waiter and hands each exit to whoever asked for that pid. Registering interest
holds the same lock the delivery takes, so a child that exits before its caller
is registered is still delivered rather than dropped; there is a test that
fails without that.
Killing the workload killed everything. `kill(-1, SIGKILL)` is every process
init may signal, so a workload that overstayed its grace period took the
guest's services with it, before the ordered stop the shutdown promises them
had even started. It signals the one pid now.
The shutdown had no workload to stop. It built a fresh handle with no pid, so
the graceful stop was a no-op and the workload only died in the sweep that
follows — which is exactly the order this was written to avoid. The handle the
session used is now the handle the shutdown uses, and waiting for the workload
waits for that pid rather than for any child to leave.
A microVM has no init unless something is it, and three of the jobs belong to
nothing else in the guest: reaping whatever the workload orphans, turning a
signal into an ordered shutdown, and being the guest end of the one channel
out.
None of it knows what it is running. The guest dials out on a fixed vsock port,
says its protocol version first, is handed one boot descriptor — a command
line, shares, output geometry, and what an exit means — and carries that out.
There is no code path that branches on which workload started, which is the
property the component exists to keep.
It reports and does not supervise. When the workload ends, the exit goes up the
channel and the session is over; `on_exit` says what the exit means, and
starting something again is a decision for the end that can see whether
restarting is repair or a loop. A signalled workload is reported as signalled
with no exit code, because reporting 0 for a killed process makes a kill look
like a clean run.
Two seams keep this testable without a VM, which is the reason for both of
them. Reaping runs against real forked children, with the subreaper bit making
a test process inherit orphans the way PID 1 does. The channel is generic over
the byte stream, so the exchange is driven over an in-memory pipe — the
transport contributes nothing to the protocol beyond ordering and framing.
The lifecycle types live in nesprotocol behind a feature, off by default: both
ends of the channel read one definition and cannot drift from it silently,
while the media components keep building without serde.
Mounting shares is not implemented in this build. The descriptor's mounts are
refused rather than ignored — a workload started without the shares it was
promised fails later, somewhere else, for a reason nobody can see from here.
