From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 13 13:05:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20914 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:05:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from nomis.i-connect.net (nomis.i-Connect.Net [206.190.143.100] (may be forged)) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA20854 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:04:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shimon@i-connect.net) Received: (qmail 24940 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Nov 1997 21:04:10 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.2-beta-111097 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199711132000.MAA26869@bubba.whistle.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:04:09 -0800 (PST) Organization: Atlas Telecom From: Simon Shapiro To: Archie Cobbs Subject: Re: unkillable process Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, (Alfred Perlstein) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi Archie Cobbs; On 13-Nov-97 you wrote: > > Alfred Perlstein writes: > > From what i understand the process 'cat' is not broken, the shell > > excuting > > the command will terminate if issued a 'kill -9' > > Not on my machine... kill -9 does nothing (see original email). Yup. This is how it is written. Why it is written this way, I dunno. I cannot come up with a good reason. > > -Archie > > > ._______________________________________________________________________ > > _ __ _ > > |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 > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > __ > Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * > http://www.whistle.com --- If Microsoft Built Cars: Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car. Sincerely Yours, Simon Shapiro Atlas Telecom Senior Architect 14355 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 130 Beaverton OR 97005 Shimon@i-Connect.Net Voice: 503.799.2313