Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:02:23 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-connect.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: unkillable process Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971113160142.15617D-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199711131848.KAA19595@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971113160142.15617D-100000>