Is controlling terminal a per-process concept?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
The Linux Programming Interface says
The ioctl(fd, TIOCNOTTY) operation can be used to remove a process’s association
with its controlling terminal, specified via the file descriptor fd. After this call,
attempts to open /dev/tty will fail. (Although not specified in SUSv3, the TIOCNOTTY
operation is supported on most UNIX implementations.)
If the calling process is the controlling process for the terminal, then as for the
termination of the controlling process (Section 34.6.2), the following steps occur:
All processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal.
The controlling terminal loses its association with the session, and can there- fore be acquired as the controlling process by another
session leader.
The kernel sends a SIGHUP signal (and a SIGCONT signal) to all members of the foreground process group, to inform them of the loss of
the controlling terminal.
Assume a session has a controlling terminal.
Assume a process in the session calls ioctl(fd,TIOCNOTTY) to remove its association with its controlling terminal.
Does that mean that controlling terminal is a per-process concept? In a process session, can some process can have a controlling terminal while some don't? (Note that https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/405780/674 says that controlling terminal is a per-process-session concept.)
Can't a process which has removed its controlling terminal be sent signals related to the controlling terminal, such as SIGHUP, while those processes which still have their controlling terminals can still be sent signals related to the controlling terminal?
When "all processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal", does it imply that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? Or do we still need to do something so that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? In other words, do we need to perform dis-association from both sides (processes and terminal), or just one side (processes or terminal)?
Thanks.
linux controlling-terminal sighup
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
add a comment |
The Linux Programming Interface says
The ioctl(fd, TIOCNOTTY) operation can be used to remove a process’s association
with its controlling terminal, specified via the file descriptor fd. After this call,
attempts to open /dev/tty will fail. (Although not specified in SUSv3, the TIOCNOTTY
operation is supported on most UNIX implementations.)
If the calling process is the controlling process for the terminal, then as for the
termination of the controlling process (Section 34.6.2), the following steps occur:
All processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal.
The controlling terminal loses its association with the session, and can there- fore be acquired as the controlling process by another
session leader.
The kernel sends a SIGHUP signal (and a SIGCONT signal) to all members of the foreground process group, to inform them of the loss of
the controlling terminal.
Assume a session has a controlling terminal.
Assume a process in the session calls ioctl(fd,TIOCNOTTY) to remove its association with its controlling terminal.
Does that mean that controlling terminal is a per-process concept? In a process session, can some process can have a controlling terminal while some don't? (Note that https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/405780/674 says that controlling terminal is a per-process-session concept.)
Can't a process which has removed its controlling terminal be sent signals related to the controlling terminal, such as SIGHUP, while those processes which still have their controlling terminals can still be sent signals related to the controlling terminal?
When "all processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal", does it imply that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? Or do we still need to do something so that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? In other words, do we need to perform dis-association from both sides (processes and terminal), or just one side (processes or terminal)?
Thanks.
linux controlling-terminal sighup
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
The third question is clearly answered by yourself using the quoted text.
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
Jan 6 at 5:34
add a comment |
The Linux Programming Interface says
The ioctl(fd, TIOCNOTTY) operation can be used to remove a process’s association
with its controlling terminal, specified via the file descriptor fd. After this call,
attempts to open /dev/tty will fail. (Although not specified in SUSv3, the TIOCNOTTY
operation is supported on most UNIX implementations.)
If the calling process is the controlling process for the terminal, then as for the
termination of the controlling process (Section 34.6.2), the following steps occur:
All processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal.
The controlling terminal loses its association with the session, and can there- fore be acquired as the controlling process by another
session leader.
The kernel sends a SIGHUP signal (and a SIGCONT signal) to all members of the foreground process group, to inform them of the loss of
the controlling terminal.
Assume a session has a controlling terminal.
Assume a process in the session calls ioctl(fd,TIOCNOTTY) to remove its association with its controlling terminal.
Does that mean that controlling terminal is a per-process concept? In a process session, can some process can have a controlling terminal while some don't? (Note that https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/405780/674 says that controlling terminal is a per-process-session concept.)
Can't a process which has removed its controlling terminal be sent signals related to the controlling terminal, such as SIGHUP, while those processes which still have their controlling terminals can still be sent signals related to the controlling terminal?
When "all processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal", does it imply that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? Or do we still need to do something so that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? In other words, do we need to perform dis-association from both sides (processes and terminal), or just one side (processes or terminal)?
Thanks.
linux controlling-terminal sighup
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
The Linux Programming Interface says
The ioctl(fd, TIOCNOTTY) operation can be used to remove a process’s association
with its controlling terminal, specified via the file descriptor fd. After this call,
attempts to open /dev/tty will fail. (Although not specified in SUSv3, the TIOCNOTTY
operation is supported on most UNIX implementations.)
If the calling process is the controlling process for the terminal, then as for the
termination of the controlling process (Section 34.6.2), the following steps occur:
All processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal.
The controlling terminal loses its association with the session, and can there- fore be acquired as the controlling process by another
session leader.
The kernel sends a SIGHUP signal (and a SIGCONT signal) to all members of the foreground process group, to inform them of the loss of
the controlling terminal.
Assume a session has a controlling terminal.
Assume a process in the session calls ioctl(fd,TIOCNOTTY) to remove its association with its controlling terminal.
Does that mean that controlling terminal is a per-process concept? In a process session, can some process can have a controlling terminal while some don't? (Note that https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/405780/674 says that controlling terminal is a per-process-session concept.)
Can't a process which has removed its controlling terminal be sent signals related to the controlling terminal, such as SIGHUP, while those processes which still have their controlling terminals can still be sent signals related to the controlling terminal?
When "all processes in the session lose their association with the controlling terminal", does it imply that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? Or do we still need to do something so that "the controlling terminal loses its association with the session"? In other words, do we need to perform dis-association from both sides (processes and terminal), or just one side (processes or terminal)?
Thanks.
linux controlling-terminal sighup
linux controlling-terminal sighup
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
edited Jan 6 at 14:10
Tim
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
asked Jan 6 at 5:16
TimTim
26.4k75250459
26.4k75250459
The third question is clearly answered by yourself using the quoted text.
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
Jan 6 at 5:34
add a comment |
The third question is clearly answered by yourself using the quoted text.
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
Jan 6 at 5:34
The third question is clearly answered by yourself using the quoted text.
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
Jan 6 at 5:34
The third question is clearly answered by yourself using the quoted text.
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
Jan 6 at 5:34
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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%2f492756%2fis-controlling-terminal-a-per-process-concept%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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%2f492756%2fis-controlling-terminal-a-per-process-concept%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
The third question is clearly answered by yourself using the quoted text.
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
Jan 6 at 5:34