Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:41:16 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: orphaned child processes with rxvt Message-ID: <20020906214116.GA27100@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020906163808 DOT A23355 AT fnord DOT io DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906163808.A23355@fnord.io.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:38:08PM -0500, Steve O wrote: >> If I hit the "close" button in the window rather than typing "exit", rxvt >> cleans up.. but there is still an "ssh" process alive and well sucking up 3 >> megs of ram. > >I was looking into this last night. The rxvt source doesn't seem >to do any process management on exit, which says to me that >the authors expect the child process to die when the parent >dies. > >So the question is, why are rxvt spawned processes under cygwin >detached from their parents, whereas on other systems they aren't. >Any ideas? In theory, child processes in a process group should be receiving a SIGHUP on exit. Does ssh die on a SIGHUP? Running rxvt under strace might be instructive. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/