[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120206192406.GB28687@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:24:07 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why are not processes HUPped when they open /dev/console?
> On 01/25/2012 10:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:38:40 +0100
> > Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> don't you remember by a chance the reason for this test in __tty_hangup:
> >> if (filp->f_op->write != tty_write)
> >>
> >> The logic there is not to HUP processes that have this tty open via
> >> /dev/console.
> >
> > Because if you hang up the console the machine crashes ?
> >
> > At least that's what used to happen.
>
> It does not crash anymore. However the system (systemd more precisely)
> is confused a bit (well, a huge). So I suppose the test has its meaning.
>
> The whole exercise was about how to fix the userspace issue introduced
> by the added infinite timeout.
> I think the proper solution here is just not to call vhangup in
> userspace for the device which is /dev/console. It never worked anyway.
> Because the HUP signal was never sent and it always timed out.
Perhaps the "infinite timeout" should be reverted, then? It sounds
like a regression...
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists