Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:33:04 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
To:        msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith)
Cc:        drew@j51.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Processes -will- -not- die!
Message-ID:  <199512061833.LAA01515@phaeton.artisoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <199512061040.KAA00954@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Dec 6, 95 10:39:59 am

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> > For some reason, some of the user apps on my system will get hung, and 
> > won't die when somebody exits unceremoniously. I of course have to go in 
> > and kill the process, which proceeds to suck up all of the CPU. This 
> > seems to happen most with "pine" and "tin", but will happen with other 
> > software as well.
> 
> It's a bug in the applications, where they're not properly checking the
> return value of the read() system call, and end up in an endless loop
> trying to read input.  Are 

Uck.  I still say it's SIGHUP not being delivered like it should.  The
question is whether POSIX and BSD process groups are really interoperable
or not.

> > I thought of setting a trap to kill the processes when a hangup signal is 
> > sent, but that should really be happening anyway,  when someone gets 
> > disconnected.   
> 
> If you check, you'll probably find that the applications already trap HUP.

Or that HUP isn't being sent.


					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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512061833.LAA01515>