Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!mica!charlie From: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Autologout of unused terminals Message-ID: <1086@entropy.ms.washington.edu> Date: 2 Dec 88 03:31:50 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@entropy.ms.washington.edu Reply-To: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle Lines: 26 In article karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > and anyway why should a process have to > disable SIGHUP in order to do its natural job? > >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. Just out of curiosity, how do I get my login shell to ignore SIGHUP? If I log in, fire up X windows, run xterm on a remote machine talking to the X server on my machine, the login shells on my machine (two of them, the console hidden by X and my root X window) may be idle for long periods of time. But I'm sitting here typing away at the keyboard and the pseudo-ttys associated with the xterm's on the remote machine have only very short idle times. If you send SIGHUP to either of the login shells on my machine, I lose everything. I'm sitting here looking at a login prompt. UNIX doesn't just talk to dumb terminals anymore. Maybe "Autologout of unused terminals" is a bad idea. If implemented, it should come with an easy way that any user can defeat it, and then what's the point?