From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov 13 11:58:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14160
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:58:52 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from server.local.sunyit.edu (A-T34.rh.sunyit.edu [150.156.210.241])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14136
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:58:34 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu)
Received: from localhost (perlsta@localhost)
	by server.local.sunyit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15681;
	Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:02:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: server.local.sunyit.edu: perlsta owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:02:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu>
X-Sender: perlsta@server.local.sunyit.edu
To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
cc: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-connect.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: unkillable process
In-Reply-To: <199711131848.KAA19595@bubba.whistle.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971113160142.15617D-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>From what i understand the process 'cat' is not broken, the shell excuting
the command will terminate if issued a 'kill -9'

.________________________________________________________________________ __ _
|Alfred Perlstein - Programming & SysAdmin --"Have you seen my FreeBSD tatoo?"
|perlsta@sunyit.edu                        --"who was that masked admin?"
|http://www.cs.sunyit.edu/~perlsta
:
'

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Archie Cobbs wrote:

> Simon Shapiro writes:
> > Hi Archie Cobbs;  On 12-Nov-97 you wrote: 
> > >  Try the following experiment (on 2.2 and mabye 3.0):
> > >  
> > >  1. Create a named pipe
> > >  2. Start typing into it using cat
> > >  3. Hit control-C as many times as you want
> > >  
> > >  You'll see that the process will not die even with kill -9,
> > >  as it is stuck in uninterrupible disk sleep ("fifo").
> > >  
> > >  But as soon as you read from the other end of the pipe,
> > >  the process exits.
> > >  
> > >  Is there a missing PCATCH flag to tsleep() somewhere?
> > >  Is this appropriate behavior? (hint: rhetorical question)
> > 
> > From what I remember, this is a typical (if ugly Unix behavior.
> 
> Hmm... does anyone else besides me have the opinion that,
> while it may be typical, this behavior is also *broken*?
> 
> Still Curious,
> -Archie
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com
>