How does 'eject' get processes to close file handles?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












On my Mac, when I 'eject' a network-mounted share, my Mac presents me with the following message, and attempts to get processes to close open file handles and cleanly dismount the share. My question is, how exactly does it accomplish that? I suppose it enumerates file handles open with my share's path, and then sends some kind of signal to the processes that own those file handles? Just a guess, please fill me in, I'm very curious about it.
Eject-dialog
I thought about asking this over on the Apple stack exchange, but I'm guessing this is actually a more generally-applicable UNIX question. If I'm wrong and macOS has a special/new way of doing this and this question needs to be closed and re-opened there, just let me know.



EDIT: added screenshot.







share|improve this question




















  • I wonder if it does get any process to close their filehandles, or if it just means those filehandles will return errors when trying to use them?
    – Kusalananda
    Dec 6 '17 at 8:46










  • @Kusalananda I believe it does, because often it sits there "trying to eject" for a while, succeeds, and the volume dismounts. If I run lsof while it's doing that, I can see all the processes and files that are open that it must have to close before dismounting cleanly.
    – Harv
    Dec 6 '17 at 10:30














up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












On my Mac, when I 'eject' a network-mounted share, my Mac presents me with the following message, and attempts to get processes to close open file handles and cleanly dismount the share. My question is, how exactly does it accomplish that? I suppose it enumerates file handles open with my share's path, and then sends some kind of signal to the processes that own those file handles? Just a guess, please fill me in, I'm very curious about it.
Eject-dialog
I thought about asking this over on the Apple stack exchange, but I'm guessing this is actually a more generally-applicable UNIX question. If I'm wrong and macOS has a special/new way of doing this and this question needs to be closed and re-opened there, just let me know.



EDIT: added screenshot.







share|improve this question




















  • I wonder if it does get any process to close their filehandles, or if it just means those filehandles will return errors when trying to use them?
    – Kusalananda
    Dec 6 '17 at 8:46










  • @Kusalananda I believe it does, because often it sits there "trying to eject" for a while, succeeds, and the volume dismounts. If I run lsof while it's doing that, I can see all the processes and files that are open that it must have to close before dismounting cleanly.
    – Harv
    Dec 6 '17 at 10:30












up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





On my Mac, when I 'eject' a network-mounted share, my Mac presents me with the following message, and attempts to get processes to close open file handles and cleanly dismount the share. My question is, how exactly does it accomplish that? I suppose it enumerates file handles open with my share's path, and then sends some kind of signal to the processes that own those file handles? Just a guess, please fill me in, I'm very curious about it.
Eject-dialog
I thought about asking this over on the Apple stack exchange, but I'm guessing this is actually a more generally-applicable UNIX question. If I'm wrong and macOS has a special/new way of doing this and this question needs to be closed and re-opened there, just let me know.



EDIT: added screenshot.







share|improve this question












On my Mac, when I 'eject' a network-mounted share, my Mac presents me with the following message, and attempts to get processes to close open file handles and cleanly dismount the share. My question is, how exactly does it accomplish that? I suppose it enumerates file handles open with my share's path, and then sends some kind of signal to the processes that own those file handles? Just a guess, please fill me in, I'm very curious about it.
Eject-dialog
I thought about asking this over on the Apple stack exchange, but I'm guessing this is actually a more generally-applicable UNIX question. If I'm wrong and macOS has a special/new way of doing this and this question needs to be closed and re-opened there, just let me know.



EDIT: added screenshot.









share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Dec 6 '17 at 5:51









Harv

3271311




3271311











  • I wonder if it does get any process to close their filehandles, or if it just means those filehandles will return errors when trying to use them?
    – Kusalananda
    Dec 6 '17 at 8:46










  • @Kusalananda I believe it does, because often it sits there "trying to eject" for a while, succeeds, and the volume dismounts. If I run lsof while it's doing that, I can see all the processes and files that are open that it must have to close before dismounting cleanly.
    – Harv
    Dec 6 '17 at 10:30
















  • I wonder if it does get any process to close their filehandles, or if it just means those filehandles will return errors when trying to use them?
    – Kusalananda
    Dec 6 '17 at 8:46










  • @Kusalananda I believe it does, because often it sits there "trying to eject" for a while, succeeds, and the volume dismounts. If I run lsof while it's doing that, I can see all the processes and files that are open that it must have to close before dismounting cleanly.
    – Harv
    Dec 6 '17 at 10:30















I wonder if it does get any process to close their filehandles, or if it just means those filehandles will return errors when trying to use them?
– Kusalananda
Dec 6 '17 at 8:46




I wonder if it does get any process to close their filehandles, or if it just means those filehandles will return errors when trying to use them?
– Kusalananda
Dec 6 '17 at 8:46












@Kusalananda I believe it does, because often it sits there "trying to eject" for a while, succeeds, and the volume dismounts. If I run lsof while it's doing that, I can see all the processes and files that are open that it must have to close before dismounting cleanly.
– Harv
Dec 6 '17 at 10:30




@Kusalananda I believe it does, because often it sits there "trying to eject" for a while, succeeds, and the volume dismounts. If I run lsof while it's doing that, I can see all the processes and files that are open that it must have to close before dismounting cleanly.
– Harv
Dec 6 '17 at 10:30










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










I don't know but with a random USB stick and a program



$ df | grep Vol
/dev/disk1s2 12228 20 12208 1% 512 0 100% /Volumes/Firmware
$ perl -E 'say $$; chdir "/Volumes/Firmware" or die "nope $!"; sleep 9999'
66433


We can indeed stall the eject, but before that we need some debugging of the process, here provided by DTrace run in some other terminal



$ sudo dtruss -p 66433
...


And then via what in English is called the force eject button, a few clicks and delays and warnings later the test program is still running, and the usb stick unmounted, and dtruss hasn't shown anything:



...
^C
$ lsof -p 66433 | grep cwd
perl5.26 66433 jhqdoe cwd cwd|rtd info error: No such file or directory
$


So for at least a standard unix program, nothing happened besides the mount point being removed out from under it. Next we can test writing something to the mount point, again with a standard unix program



$ cat writeslow
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use 5.14.0;
use warnings;

open( my $fh, ">", "/Volumes/Firmware/mlatu" ) or die "nope $!";
while (1)
syswrite( $fh, "mlatun" ) or warn "hmm $!";
sleep 3;

$ perl writeslow


and elsewhere we confirm the cats are showing up (buffering may be a problem if you use some higher-level write function)



$ cat /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
mlatu
mlatu
$


and again we force eject, and the program does notice this (but keeps on running, because it was written that way):



$ perl writeslow
hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.
hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.


so Mac OS X 10.11 (for this hardware is rather too old to run macOS) does nothing to "attempt to get processes to close open file handles" as claimed in the question, and there's no evidence "some kind of signal [is sent] to the processes that own those file handles" happens; instead the process keeps on running and if it does any sort of error checking then maybe it will fail, depending on how it was written.



At least for standard unix programs that have the standard unix cwd and use standard I/O calls; maybe Apple frameworked programs are somehow different? Let's remount the usb stick yet again and open the mlatu file with Hex Fiend.app...



$ open -a Hex Fiend /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
$ lsof | grep mlatu
Hexx20Fi 66642 jhqdoe 8r REG 1,5 216 7 /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
$


(or instead use TextEdit or something if you don't have Hex Fiend installed) and once again do the force eject dance...



$ screencapture -w error.png
$


hex fiend using partition error



and now we get a different message than for standard unix programs and no option to force unmount.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    It doesn't. It just umount the filesystem, so when a program try to access again the filesystem, it will have an error (and hopefully it will try to resolve things smoothly).



    Not very different with the case you detach physically a external disk (or USB pen). The filesystem is no more available, but the programs will see it just after first use.






    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "106"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f409107%2fhow-does-eject-get-processes-to-close-file-handles%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote



      accepted










      I don't know but with a random USB stick and a program



      $ df | grep Vol
      /dev/disk1s2 12228 20 12208 1% 512 0 100% /Volumes/Firmware
      $ perl -E 'say $$; chdir "/Volumes/Firmware" or die "nope $!"; sleep 9999'
      66433


      We can indeed stall the eject, but before that we need some debugging of the process, here provided by DTrace run in some other terminal



      $ sudo dtruss -p 66433
      ...


      And then via what in English is called the force eject button, a few clicks and delays and warnings later the test program is still running, and the usb stick unmounted, and dtruss hasn't shown anything:



      ...
      ^C
      $ lsof -p 66433 | grep cwd
      perl5.26 66433 jhqdoe cwd cwd|rtd info error: No such file or directory
      $


      So for at least a standard unix program, nothing happened besides the mount point being removed out from under it. Next we can test writing something to the mount point, again with a standard unix program



      $ cat writeslow
      #!/usr/bin/env perl
      use 5.14.0;
      use warnings;

      open( my $fh, ">", "/Volumes/Firmware/mlatu" ) or die "nope $!";
      while (1)
      syswrite( $fh, "mlatun" ) or warn "hmm $!";
      sleep 3;

      $ perl writeslow


      and elsewhere we confirm the cats are showing up (buffering may be a problem if you use some higher-level write function)



      $ cat /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
      mlatu
      mlatu
      $


      and again we force eject, and the program does notice this (but keeps on running, because it was written that way):



      $ perl writeslow
      hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.
      hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.


      so Mac OS X 10.11 (for this hardware is rather too old to run macOS) does nothing to "attempt to get processes to close open file handles" as claimed in the question, and there's no evidence "some kind of signal [is sent] to the processes that own those file handles" happens; instead the process keeps on running and if it does any sort of error checking then maybe it will fail, depending on how it was written.



      At least for standard unix programs that have the standard unix cwd and use standard I/O calls; maybe Apple frameworked programs are somehow different? Let's remount the usb stick yet again and open the mlatu file with Hex Fiend.app...



      $ open -a Hex Fiend /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
      $ lsof | grep mlatu
      Hexx20Fi 66642 jhqdoe 8r REG 1,5 216 7 /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
      $


      (or instead use TextEdit or something if you don't have Hex Fiend installed) and once again do the force eject dance...



      $ screencapture -w error.png
      $


      hex fiend using partition error



      and now we get a different message than for standard unix programs and no option to force unmount.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted










        I don't know but with a random USB stick and a program



        $ df | grep Vol
        /dev/disk1s2 12228 20 12208 1% 512 0 100% /Volumes/Firmware
        $ perl -E 'say $$; chdir "/Volumes/Firmware" or die "nope $!"; sleep 9999'
        66433


        We can indeed stall the eject, but before that we need some debugging of the process, here provided by DTrace run in some other terminal



        $ sudo dtruss -p 66433
        ...


        And then via what in English is called the force eject button, a few clicks and delays and warnings later the test program is still running, and the usb stick unmounted, and dtruss hasn't shown anything:



        ...
        ^C
        $ lsof -p 66433 | grep cwd
        perl5.26 66433 jhqdoe cwd cwd|rtd info error: No such file or directory
        $


        So for at least a standard unix program, nothing happened besides the mount point being removed out from under it. Next we can test writing something to the mount point, again with a standard unix program



        $ cat writeslow
        #!/usr/bin/env perl
        use 5.14.0;
        use warnings;

        open( my $fh, ">", "/Volumes/Firmware/mlatu" ) or die "nope $!";
        while (1)
        syswrite( $fh, "mlatun" ) or warn "hmm $!";
        sleep 3;

        $ perl writeslow


        and elsewhere we confirm the cats are showing up (buffering may be a problem if you use some higher-level write function)



        $ cat /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
        mlatu
        mlatu
        $


        and again we force eject, and the program does notice this (but keeps on running, because it was written that way):



        $ perl writeslow
        hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.
        hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.


        so Mac OS X 10.11 (for this hardware is rather too old to run macOS) does nothing to "attempt to get processes to close open file handles" as claimed in the question, and there's no evidence "some kind of signal [is sent] to the processes that own those file handles" happens; instead the process keeps on running and if it does any sort of error checking then maybe it will fail, depending on how it was written.



        At least for standard unix programs that have the standard unix cwd and use standard I/O calls; maybe Apple frameworked programs are somehow different? Let's remount the usb stick yet again and open the mlatu file with Hex Fiend.app...



        $ open -a Hex Fiend /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
        $ lsof | grep mlatu
        Hexx20Fi 66642 jhqdoe 8r REG 1,5 216 7 /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
        $


        (or instead use TextEdit or something if you don't have Hex Fiend installed) and once again do the force eject dance...



        $ screencapture -w error.png
        $


        hex fiend using partition error



        and now we get a different message than for standard unix programs and no option to force unmount.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted






          I don't know but with a random USB stick and a program



          $ df | grep Vol
          /dev/disk1s2 12228 20 12208 1% 512 0 100% /Volumes/Firmware
          $ perl -E 'say $$; chdir "/Volumes/Firmware" or die "nope $!"; sleep 9999'
          66433


          We can indeed stall the eject, but before that we need some debugging of the process, here provided by DTrace run in some other terminal



          $ sudo dtruss -p 66433
          ...


          And then via what in English is called the force eject button, a few clicks and delays and warnings later the test program is still running, and the usb stick unmounted, and dtruss hasn't shown anything:



          ...
          ^C
          $ lsof -p 66433 | grep cwd
          perl5.26 66433 jhqdoe cwd cwd|rtd info error: No such file or directory
          $


          So for at least a standard unix program, nothing happened besides the mount point being removed out from under it. Next we can test writing something to the mount point, again with a standard unix program



          $ cat writeslow
          #!/usr/bin/env perl
          use 5.14.0;
          use warnings;

          open( my $fh, ">", "/Volumes/Firmware/mlatu" ) or die "nope $!";
          while (1)
          syswrite( $fh, "mlatun" ) or warn "hmm $!";
          sleep 3;

          $ perl writeslow


          and elsewhere we confirm the cats are showing up (buffering may be a problem if you use some higher-level write function)



          $ cat /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
          mlatu
          mlatu
          $


          and again we force eject, and the program does notice this (but keeps on running, because it was written that way):



          $ perl writeslow
          hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.
          hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.


          so Mac OS X 10.11 (for this hardware is rather too old to run macOS) does nothing to "attempt to get processes to close open file handles" as claimed in the question, and there's no evidence "some kind of signal [is sent] to the processes that own those file handles" happens; instead the process keeps on running and if it does any sort of error checking then maybe it will fail, depending on how it was written.



          At least for standard unix programs that have the standard unix cwd and use standard I/O calls; maybe Apple frameworked programs are somehow different? Let's remount the usb stick yet again and open the mlatu file with Hex Fiend.app...



          $ open -a Hex Fiend /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
          $ lsof | grep mlatu
          Hexx20Fi 66642 jhqdoe 8r REG 1,5 216 7 /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
          $


          (or instead use TextEdit or something if you don't have Hex Fiend installed) and once again do the force eject dance...



          $ screencapture -w error.png
          $


          hex fiend using partition error



          and now we get a different message than for standard unix programs and no option to force unmount.






          share|improve this answer












          I don't know but with a random USB stick and a program



          $ df | grep Vol
          /dev/disk1s2 12228 20 12208 1% 512 0 100% /Volumes/Firmware
          $ perl -E 'say $$; chdir "/Volumes/Firmware" or die "nope $!"; sleep 9999'
          66433


          We can indeed stall the eject, but before that we need some debugging of the process, here provided by DTrace run in some other terminal



          $ sudo dtruss -p 66433
          ...


          And then via what in English is called the force eject button, a few clicks and delays and warnings later the test program is still running, and the usb stick unmounted, and dtruss hasn't shown anything:



          ...
          ^C
          $ lsof -p 66433 | grep cwd
          perl5.26 66433 jhqdoe cwd cwd|rtd info error: No such file or directory
          $


          So for at least a standard unix program, nothing happened besides the mount point being removed out from under it. Next we can test writing something to the mount point, again with a standard unix program



          $ cat writeslow
          #!/usr/bin/env perl
          use 5.14.0;
          use warnings;

          open( my $fh, ">", "/Volumes/Firmware/mlatu" ) or die "nope $!";
          while (1)
          syswrite( $fh, "mlatun" ) or warn "hmm $!";
          sleep 3;

          $ perl writeslow


          and elsewhere we confirm the cats are showing up (buffering may be a problem if you use some higher-level write function)



          $ cat /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
          mlatu
          mlatu
          $


          and again we force eject, and the program does notice this (but keeps on running, because it was written that way):



          $ perl writeslow
          hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.
          hmm Input/output error at writeslow line 7.


          so Mac OS X 10.11 (for this hardware is rather too old to run macOS) does nothing to "attempt to get processes to close open file handles" as claimed in the question, and there's no evidence "some kind of signal [is sent] to the processes that own those file handles" happens; instead the process keeps on running and if it does any sort of error checking then maybe it will fail, depending on how it was written.



          At least for standard unix programs that have the standard unix cwd and use standard I/O calls; maybe Apple frameworked programs are somehow different? Let's remount the usb stick yet again and open the mlatu file with Hex Fiend.app...



          $ open -a Hex Fiend /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
          $ lsof | grep mlatu
          Hexx20Fi 66642 jhqdoe 8r REG 1,5 216 7 /Volumes/Firmware/mlatu
          $


          (or instead use TextEdit or something if you don't have Hex Fiend installed) and once again do the force eject dance...



          $ screencapture -w error.png
          $


          hex fiend using partition error



          and now we get a different message than for standard unix programs and no option to force unmount.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 6 '17 at 17:02









          thrig

          22.5k12852




          22.5k12852






















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              It doesn't. It just umount the filesystem, so when a program try to access again the filesystem, it will have an error (and hopefully it will try to resolve things smoothly).



              Not very different with the case you detach physically a external disk (or USB pen). The filesystem is no more available, but the programs will see it just after first use.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                It doesn't. It just umount the filesystem, so when a program try to access again the filesystem, it will have an error (and hopefully it will try to resolve things smoothly).



                Not very different with the case you detach physically a external disk (or USB pen). The filesystem is no more available, but the programs will see it just after first use.






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  It doesn't. It just umount the filesystem, so when a program try to access again the filesystem, it will have an error (and hopefully it will try to resolve things smoothly).



                  Not very different with the case you detach physically a external disk (or USB pen). The filesystem is no more available, but the programs will see it just after first use.






                  share|improve this answer












                  It doesn't. It just umount the filesystem, so when a program try to access again the filesystem, it will have an error (and hopefully it will try to resolve things smoothly).



                  Not very different with the case you detach physically a external disk (or USB pen). The filesystem is no more available, but the programs will see it just after first use.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 6 '17 at 16:58









                  Giacomo Catenazzi

                  1,973314




                  1,973314



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f409107%2fhow-does-eject-get-processes-to-close-file-handles%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Bahrain

                      Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay