Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:34:34 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: brian@awfulhak.org (Brian Somers) Cc: terry@lambert.org, tom@uniserve.com, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, ache@nagual.pp.ru, current@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@awfulhak.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Subject: Re: ppp & HUP. Message-ID: <199707041834.LAA10887@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199707040730.IAA01082@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> from "Brian Somers" at Jul 4, 97 08:30:23 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Exactly what processes actually exit upon receiving a HUP? Not many. > > > Apparently only some user processes. Daemons NEVER exit, instead they > > > thrash the system. Ugh. > > > > All of them that don't explicitly trap HUP. > > > > I always though this should have been handled by revoking the tty's > > allowing that to HUP to the process group. This would also mean > > removing the HUP sending from init. > > Don't confuse the HUP that's sent to everything that's "on" > in /etc/ttys and the HUP that's sent in death() (before TERM > & KILL) when the system's coming down. Everything that's "on" in /etc/ttys has a controlling tty; they will each get a HUP after the revoke. The problem here is the HUP propagation to chile processes of the process group leader in init. The HUP that's sent in death() should not be sent. It should ne implicit in the revocation of all tty's by shutdown(). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707041834.LAA10887>