From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 27 07:58:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29231 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:58:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net (porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net [206.64.4.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29225 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:58:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03755; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:00:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) X-Authentication-Warning: porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net: bright owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:00:06 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein X-Sender: bright@porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net To: Marius Bendiksen cc: "Ron G. Minnich" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dropping to single user mode on a telnet connection In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981027164356.0090a7c0@mail.scancall.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Marius Bendiksen wrote: > >Interesting idea passed to me by john degood, who used to work at hp. > > Indeed. This is a quite interesting idea. > > >On hpux, when you drop to single user via a telnet connection, it leaves > >the connection open. Result: you don't have to mess around in single user > >via a local keyboard. This would be heaven on a cluster. I am sure it is > >hard, but it is something to think about. > > One possible solution might be setting up a script which is run after the > drop to single-user mode. The script could use netcat or telnet, perhaps > combined with some tails and then plugged into a shell. This would give you > a log of the session, as well as a fairly(?) simple solution. The > telnet/netcat would connect back to you, or open a listening session. > > This is not quite the same, but not that far off, is it? doesn't sound too difficult, you could have init catch the shutdown signal see who it came from, notice thier controlling terminal and not send signals to that process group. or perhaps that could be the behaviour expected if a different signal was sent to init so as not to break non-standard shutdown(ing) programs. Alfred Perlstein - Programmer, HotJobs Inc. - www.hotjobs.com -- There are operating systems, and then there's FreeBSD. -- http://www.freebsd.org/ 3.0-current To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message