Coreutils timeout(1) plays badly with man/less
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I want to set a timeout to the less(1) command on our company's production server. Everyday we produce large log files on it, and despite the nightly batch job to archive/remove them, we sometimes get alerted on high disk usage because a (long-)running process can prevent a file from getting unlink(2)-ed physically due to the reference-counting semantics of POSIX filesystems.
To avoid the most common cases of such annoyances, I wrote a wrapper of less which runs it under timeout(1) so that idle less processes get automatically killed after several hours without keeping open files in the filesystem.
But it turned out to play badly with man(1): when the wrapper is launched by the man command via the PAGER environment variable, it stopped responding to any keyboard inputs. Here is a minimal reproducible test case:
$ PAGER='timeout 12h /bin/less' man man
After running this, ps fx output looks like this:
19415 pts/1 SNs 0:00 _ -bash
19854 pts/1 SN+ 0:00 _ man man
19867 pts/1 SN 0:00 _ timeout 12h /bin/less
19869 pts/1 TN 0:00 _ /bin/less
and I could only kill -KILL 19869 to regain an access to the terminal.
What did I get wrong here?
Why is the less process in the T state, as opposed to S?
terminal process-management timeout
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
add a comment |
I want to set a timeout to the less(1) command on our company's production server. Everyday we produce large log files on it, and despite the nightly batch job to archive/remove them, we sometimes get alerted on high disk usage because a (long-)running process can prevent a file from getting unlink(2)-ed physically due to the reference-counting semantics of POSIX filesystems.
To avoid the most common cases of such annoyances, I wrote a wrapper of less which runs it under timeout(1) so that idle less processes get automatically killed after several hours without keeping open files in the filesystem.
But it turned out to play badly with man(1): when the wrapper is launched by the man command via the PAGER environment variable, it stopped responding to any keyboard inputs. Here is a minimal reproducible test case:
$ PAGER='timeout 12h /bin/less' man man
After running this, ps fx output looks like this:
19415 pts/1 SNs 0:00 _ -bash
19854 pts/1 SN+ 0:00 _ man man
19867 pts/1 SN 0:00 _ timeout 12h /bin/less
19869 pts/1 TN 0:00 _ /bin/less
and I could only kill -KILL 19869 to regain an access to the terminal.
What did I get wrong here?
Why is the less process in the T state, as opposed to S?
terminal process-management timeout
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
Show us the wrapper please
– Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 7 at 7:24
The only way I can reproduce this is if I temporarily putman/lessin the background throughCtrl+Z. Did you do that to run yourpscommand? That would putlessin a T state... UsingtimeoutinPAGERseems to work as expected on my OpenBSD system.
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 7:27
I suspect that the less process is getting suspended because it isn' in the foreground (so it receives SIGTTIN when it tries to read from stdin). @Kusalananda
– Gilles
Jan 7 at 8:36
@Gilles Had you given a comment a bit earlier... I just posted my findings as a solution to my own question.
– nodakai
Jan 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
I want to set a timeout to the less(1) command on our company's production server. Everyday we produce large log files on it, and despite the nightly batch job to archive/remove them, we sometimes get alerted on high disk usage because a (long-)running process can prevent a file from getting unlink(2)-ed physically due to the reference-counting semantics of POSIX filesystems.
To avoid the most common cases of such annoyances, I wrote a wrapper of less which runs it under timeout(1) so that idle less processes get automatically killed after several hours without keeping open files in the filesystem.
But it turned out to play badly with man(1): when the wrapper is launched by the man command via the PAGER environment variable, it stopped responding to any keyboard inputs. Here is a minimal reproducible test case:
$ PAGER='timeout 12h /bin/less' man man
After running this, ps fx output looks like this:
19415 pts/1 SNs 0:00 _ -bash
19854 pts/1 SN+ 0:00 _ man man
19867 pts/1 SN 0:00 _ timeout 12h /bin/less
19869 pts/1 TN 0:00 _ /bin/less
and I could only kill -KILL 19869 to regain an access to the terminal.
What did I get wrong here?
Why is the less process in the T state, as opposed to S?
terminal process-management timeout
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
I want to set a timeout to the less(1) command on our company's production server. Everyday we produce large log files on it, and despite the nightly batch job to archive/remove them, we sometimes get alerted on high disk usage because a (long-)running process can prevent a file from getting unlink(2)-ed physically due to the reference-counting semantics of POSIX filesystems.
To avoid the most common cases of such annoyances, I wrote a wrapper of less which runs it under timeout(1) so that idle less processes get automatically killed after several hours without keeping open files in the filesystem.
But it turned out to play badly with man(1): when the wrapper is launched by the man command via the PAGER environment variable, it stopped responding to any keyboard inputs. Here is a minimal reproducible test case:
$ PAGER='timeout 12h /bin/less' man man
After running this, ps fx output looks like this:
19415 pts/1 SNs 0:00 _ -bash
19854 pts/1 SN+ 0:00 _ man man
19867 pts/1 SN 0:00 _ timeout 12h /bin/less
19869 pts/1 TN 0:00 _ /bin/less
and I could only kill -KILL 19869 to regain an access to the terminal.
What did I get wrong here?
Why is the less process in the T state, as opposed to S?
terminal process-management timeout
terminal process-management timeout
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
asked Jan 7 at 7:19
nodakainodakai
247110
247110
Show us the wrapper please
– Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 7 at 7:24
The only way I can reproduce this is if I temporarily putman/lessin the background throughCtrl+Z. Did you do that to run yourpscommand? That would putlessin a T state... UsingtimeoutinPAGERseems to work as expected on my OpenBSD system.
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 7:27
I suspect that the less process is getting suspended because it isn' in the foreground (so it receives SIGTTIN when it tries to read from stdin). @Kusalananda
– Gilles
Jan 7 at 8:36
@Gilles Had you given a comment a bit earlier... I just posted my findings as a solution to my own question.
– nodakai
Jan 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
Show us the wrapper please
– Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 7 at 7:24
The only way I can reproduce this is if I temporarily putman/lessin the background throughCtrl+Z. Did you do that to run yourpscommand? That would putlessin a T state... UsingtimeoutinPAGERseems to work as expected on my OpenBSD system.
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 7:27
I suspect that the less process is getting suspended because it isn' in the foreground (so it receives SIGTTIN when it tries to read from stdin). @Kusalananda
– Gilles
Jan 7 at 8:36
@Gilles Had you given a comment a bit earlier... I just posted my findings as a solution to my own question.
– nodakai
Jan 7 at 8:55
Show us the wrapper please
– Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 7 at 7:24
Show us the wrapper please
– Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 7 at 7:24
The only way I can reproduce this is if I temporarily put
man/less in the background through Ctrl+Z. Did you do that to run your ps command? That would put less in a T state... Using timeout in PAGER seems to work as expected on my OpenBSD system.– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 7:27
The only way I can reproduce this is if I temporarily put
man/less in the background through Ctrl+Z. Did you do that to run your ps command? That would put less in a T state... Using timeout in PAGER seems to work as expected on my OpenBSD system.– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 7:27
I suspect that the less process is getting suspended because it isn' in the foreground (so it receives SIGTTIN when it tries to read from stdin). @Kusalananda
– Gilles
Jan 7 at 8:36
I suspect that the less process is getting suspended because it isn' in the foreground (so it receives SIGTTIN when it tries to read from stdin). @Kusalananda
– Gilles
Jan 7 at 8:36
@Gilles Had you given a comment a bit earlier... I just posted my findings as a solution to my own question.
– nodakai
Jan 7 at 8:55
@Gilles Had you given a comment a bit earlier... I just posted my findings as a solution to my own question.
– nodakai
Jan 7 at 8:55
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Answering to my own question, as I couldn't really find any hints on this via my googling.
strace(1) could actually reveal that SIGTTOU had been sent to the less process.
- https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Job-Control-Signals.html
This is similar to
SIGTTIN, but is generated when a process in a background job attempts to write to the terminal or set its modes. ...snip...
And apparently timeout(1) by default puts the process under management into background:
- https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html
--foreground
Don’t create a separate background program group, so that the managed command can use the foreground TTY normally. ...snip...
So the solution to my problem was
$ PAGER='/bin/timeout --foreground 12h /bin/less' man man
(and something equivalent in my wrapper)
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
1
@Kusalananda/usr/bin/manis a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
1
lessstill doesn't work right withtimeout; when killed by a signal,lesswill fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blindresetorstty sane; trytimeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
1
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for meg=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"
– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
Nodakai, on my Debian version oftimeoutthe man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. Withtimeout 12h lessthe page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the--foregroundoption is not required unlesstimeoutitself is not being run directly from a terminal.
– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492941%2fcoreutils-timeout1-plays-badly-with-man-less%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Answering to my own question, as I couldn't really find any hints on this via my googling.
strace(1) could actually reveal that SIGTTOU had been sent to the less process.
- https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Job-Control-Signals.html
This is similar to
SIGTTIN, but is generated when a process in a background job attempts to write to the terminal or set its modes. ...snip...
And apparently timeout(1) by default puts the process under management into background:
- https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html
--foreground
Don’t create a separate background program group, so that the managed command can use the foreground TTY normally. ...snip...
So the solution to my problem was
$ PAGER='/bin/timeout --foreground 12h /bin/less' man man
(and something equivalent in my wrapper)
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
1
@Kusalananda/usr/bin/manis a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
1
lessstill doesn't work right withtimeout; when killed by a signal,lesswill fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blindresetorstty sane; trytimeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
1
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for meg=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"
– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
Nodakai, on my Debian version oftimeoutthe man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. Withtimeout 12h lessthe page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the--foregroundoption is not required unlesstimeoutitself is not being run directly from a terminal.
– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
add a comment |
Answering to my own question, as I couldn't really find any hints on this via my googling.
strace(1) could actually reveal that SIGTTOU had been sent to the less process.
- https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Job-Control-Signals.html
This is similar to
SIGTTIN, but is generated when a process in a background job attempts to write to the terminal or set its modes. ...snip...
And apparently timeout(1) by default puts the process under management into background:
- https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html
--foreground
Don’t create a separate background program group, so that the managed command can use the foreground TTY normally. ...snip...
So the solution to my problem was
$ PAGER='/bin/timeout --foreground 12h /bin/less' man man
(and something equivalent in my wrapper)
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
1
@Kusalananda/usr/bin/manis a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
1
lessstill doesn't work right withtimeout; when killed by a signal,lesswill fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blindresetorstty sane; trytimeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
1
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for meg=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"
– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
Nodakai, on my Debian version oftimeoutthe man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. Withtimeout 12h lessthe page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the--foregroundoption is not required unlesstimeoutitself is not being run directly from a terminal.
– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
add a comment |
Answering to my own question, as I couldn't really find any hints on this via my googling.
strace(1) could actually reveal that SIGTTOU had been sent to the less process.
- https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Job-Control-Signals.html
This is similar to
SIGTTIN, but is generated when a process in a background job attempts to write to the terminal or set its modes. ...snip...
And apparently timeout(1) by default puts the process under management into background:
- https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html
--foreground
Don’t create a separate background program group, so that the managed command can use the foreground TTY normally. ...snip...
So the solution to my problem was
$ PAGER='/bin/timeout --foreground 12h /bin/less' man man
(and something equivalent in my wrapper)
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
Answering to my own question, as I couldn't really find any hints on this via my googling.
strace(1) could actually reveal that SIGTTOU had been sent to the less process.
- https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Job-Control-Signals.html
This is similar to
SIGTTIN, but is generated when a process in a background job attempts to write to the terminal or set its modes. ...snip...
And apparently timeout(1) by default puts the process under management into background:
- https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html
--foreground
Don’t create a separate background program group, so that the managed command can use the foreground TTY normally. ...snip...
So the solution to my problem was
$ PAGER='/bin/timeout --foreground 12h /bin/less' man man
(and something equivalent in my wrapper)
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
edited Jan 7 at 8:56
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
answered Jan 7 at 8:51
nodakainodakai
247110
247110
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
1
@Kusalananda/usr/bin/manis a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
1
lessstill doesn't work right withtimeout; when killed by a signal,lesswill fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blindresetorstty sane; trytimeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
1
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for meg=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"
– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
Nodakai, on my Debian version oftimeoutthe man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. Withtimeout 12h lessthe page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the--foregroundoption is not required unlesstimeoutitself is not being run directly from a terminal.
– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
add a comment |
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
1
@Kusalananda/usr/bin/manis a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
1
lessstill doesn't work right withtimeout; when killed by a signal,lesswill fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blindresetorstty sane; trytimeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.
– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
1
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for meg=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"
– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
Nodakai, on my Debian version oftimeoutthe man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. Withtimeout 12h lessthe page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the--foregroundoption is not required unlesstimeoutitself is not being run directly from a terminal.
– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
Hmmm... I wonder it seemed to be working on my system then?
– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 9:02
1
1
@Kusalananda
/usr/bin/man is a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
@Kusalananda
/usr/bin/man is a completely different beast on OpenBSD than on linux, especially since they got rid of groff.– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:16
1
1
less still doesn't work right with timeout; when killed by a signal, less will fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blind reset or stty sane; try timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
less still doesn't work right with timeout; when killed by a signal, less will fail to restore the stty/termios settings, and you will be left with having to do a blind reset or stty sane; try timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc.– mosvy
Jan 7 at 9:23
1
1
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for me
g=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
@mosvy this (minimal example) wrapper seems to fix it for me
g=$(stty -g); timeout 2s less ~/.bashrc || stty "$g"– roaima
Jan 7 at 9:59
Nodakai, on my Debian version of
timeout the man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. With timeout 12h less the page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the --foreground option is not required unless timeout itself is not being run directly from a terminal.– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
Nodakai, on my Debian version of
timeout the man page and effect appear to contradict the GNU info page you referenced. With timeout 12h less the page works as I would expect - until the timeout gets reached. Specifically, the --foreground option is not required unless timeout itself is not being run directly from a terminal.– roaima
Jan 7 at 10:04
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492941%2fcoreutils-timeout1-plays-badly-with-man-less%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Show us the wrapper please
– Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 7 at 7:24
The only way I can reproduce this is if I temporarily put
man/lessin the background throughCtrl+Z. Did you do that to run yourpscommand? That would putlessin a T state... UsingtimeoutinPAGERseems to work as expected on my OpenBSD system.– Kusalananda
Jan 7 at 7:27
I suspect that the less process is getting suspended because it isn' in the foreground (so it receives SIGTTIN when it tries to read from stdin). @Kusalananda
– Gilles
Jan 7 at 8:36
@Gilles Had you given a comment a bit earlier... I just posted my findings as a solution to my own question.
– nodakai
Jan 7 at 8:55