Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu!karl From: karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Autologout of unused terminals Message-ID:Date: 1 Dec 88 20:54:36 GMT References: <201.nlunix6@orcenl.uucp> <8978@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2682@sultra.UUCP> <9012@smoke.BRL.MIL> <213.nlunix6@orcenl.uucp> <9032@smoke.BRL.MIL> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: OSU Lines: 18 In-reply-to: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL's message of 1 Dec 88 18:39:44 GMT gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: and anyway why should a process have to disable SIGHUP in order to do its natural job? Perhaps I'm dense today, but I don't understand the question. Any process doing critical work has to protect itself from a variety of sources of abuse. And OSes protect themselves with (the non-UNIX equivalent of) spl7() when entering a critical region. And a lot of applications perform checkpointing when they finish a large, logically-complete chunk of some much larger task. And so on... I guess my question is, Why shouldn't a process be responsible for its entire state, short of the superuser attack with SIGKILL? I write a lot of code that has to survive disconnection from the controlling terminal, at least long enough to clean up and leave the world in a sane state. --Karl