From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 21 9:57:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852BA15528 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:57:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA29303; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:54:57 +1000 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:54:57 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199907211654.CAA29303@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, sheldonh@uunet.co.za Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/inetd inetd.c Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Can nohup really prevent processes from trapping SIGHUP? I thought it >just set the SIGUP handler to discard and hoped for the best. It's normally a bug to catch ignored signals. Daomons that reread config files when they receive a signal may be counterexamples. OTOH, they probably shouldn't be started with some signals ignored unless ignoring those signals is really wanted. >Xntpd in the base system explicitly requests its graceful termination >function, called finish(), be loaded as the SIGHUP handler. This seems to be just a bug. finish() is used for SIGHUP, SIGINT, SIGQUIT and SIGTERM. finish() just finishes (actually it has undefined behaviour since it calls exit()), so nothing except undefined behaviour is lost by ignoring these signals. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message