From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 25 22:51:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA20621 for current-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA20616 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.5/8.6.9) id RAA31869; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:44:07 +1100 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:44:07 +1100 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199703260644.RAA31869@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): == dialing Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, rb@gid.co.uk Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> >>The slattach daemon has a controlling tty... >> > >> >Only until it calls daemon() immediately after cracking its args. >> >> No. It acquires a controlling tty a few lines after it becomes a >> daemon, at least in the redial case (I think the !redial case is >> still broken - it does a null redial instead of aborting like the >> documentation for the -l option says it does). > >This means it should get a SIGHUP on on-to-off DCD transistion if >-CLOCAL is set. It does. >Does it mean it should get SIGHUP when the tty is revoked? ...I don't >think so, actually. It doesn't. >You *could* argue, on this basis, that slattach is doing the wrong thing, >and that's what's leaving it open to getting a SIGHUP when it should >not be getting on. It wants to get a SIGHUP on hangup, and it does all the right things to get one on POSIX systems. There are an onerous number of things to do... Bruce