Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:00:54 GMT From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): <ctrl><alt><del> == dialing Message-ID: <l03020908af5e07f22ef7@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:02 pm -0000 25/3/97, Bruce Evans wrote:
>>>This differs from when the system is shut down using reboot(8). reboot
>>>shuts things down by broadcasting signals of increasing severity
>>>{ SIGTERM, SIGKILL }. I don't know why init broadcasts SIGHUP...
>>
>>That I can tell you: interactive shells don't respond to SIGTERM. OTOH,
>>init shouldn't send SIGHUP to daemons (ie sessions with no controlling tty)
>>because they mostly take HUP to mean "reread your config".
>
>Init can't know enough about program (mis)behaviour to do this.
If that is true, Terry is right and something is broken.
>The slattach daemon has a controlling tty...
Only until it calls daemon() immediately after cracking its args.
>... but shouldn't be sent a SIGHUP, since that
>tells it to redial.
Which is (close to) where we came in.
>I think ignoring SIGTERM is braindamaged.
AFAIK, interactive shells have always done so (since V7 at least). Bear in
mind that SIGHUP originated historically as a (hardware) indication that
carrier had dropped because the caller had Hung UP, whereas TERM has always
been a pure software signal.
--
Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118
rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03020908af5e07f22ef7>