Can a (non-)controlling process detach its controlling terminal by closing its file descriptor?
In a process session with a controlling terminal,
if the controlling process closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal, does the process session become detached from the controlling terminal, i.e. not have any controlling terminal?
What if a non-controlling process in the session closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal?
Thanks.
session controlling-terminal
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
add a comment |
In a process session with a controlling terminal,
if the controlling process closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal, does the process session become detached from the controlling terminal, i.e. not have any controlling terminal?
What if a non-controlling process in the session closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal?
Thanks.
session controlling-terminal
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
Stephen Kitt actually addressed this in two of Tim's questions in 2018: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/447197 .
– JdeBP
yesterday
Do you mean the answers to both questions are no?
– Tim
yesterday
That is correct the answers to both questions are no. Closing the handles does not disassociate the process from its terminal. The terminal still maintains ownership of the processes created under it, unless forked or nohup ed, or stopped and bg ed. This is maintained through the pid parent hierarchy.
– Strom
yesterday
That is yet another example of why one should always take comment answers with a large sackful of salt. As can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the "unless nohup ed" is yet more incorrect information (obviously so, if one considers whatnohupdoes), and as can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405755 , so too is "maintained through the pid parent hierarchy". Tim has already asked about stopped/background processes in many questions such as unix.stackexchange.com/questions/490986 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/396840 .
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
add a comment |
In a process session with a controlling terminal,
if the controlling process closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal, does the process session become detached from the controlling terminal, i.e. not have any controlling terminal?
What if a non-controlling process in the session closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal?
Thanks.
session controlling-terminal
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
In a process session with a controlling terminal,
if the controlling process closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal, does the process session become detached from the controlling terminal, i.e. not have any controlling terminal?
What if a non-controlling process in the session closes the file descriptor of the controlling terminal?
Thanks.
session controlling-terminal
session controlling-terminal
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
asked yesterday
Tim
26.1k74246455
26.1k74246455
Stephen Kitt actually addressed this in two of Tim's questions in 2018: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/447197 .
– JdeBP
yesterday
Do you mean the answers to both questions are no?
– Tim
yesterday
That is correct the answers to both questions are no. Closing the handles does not disassociate the process from its terminal. The terminal still maintains ownership of the processes created under it, unless forked or nohup ed, or stopped and bg ed. This is maintained through the pid parent hierarchy.
– Strom
yesterday
That is yet another example of why one should always take comment answers with a large sackful of salt. As can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the "unless nohup ed" is yet more incorrect information (obviously so, if one considers whatnohupdoes), and as can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405755 , so too is "maintained through the pid parent hierarchy". Tim has already asked about stopped/background processes in many questions such as unix.stackexchange.com/questions/490986 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/396840 .
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
add a comment |
Stephen Kitt actually addressed this in two of Tim's questions in 2018: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/447197 .
– JdeBP
yesterday
Do you mean the answers to both questions are no?
– Tim
yesterday
That is correct the answers to both questions are no. Closing the handles does not disassociate the process from its terminal. The terminal still maintains ownership of the processes created under it, unless forked or nohup ed, or stopped and bg ed. This is maintained through the pid parent hierarchy.
– Strom
yesterday
That is yet another example of why one should always take comment answers with a large sackful of salt. As can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the "unless nohup ed" is yet more incorrect information (obviously so, if one considers whatnohupdoes), and as can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405755 , so too is "maintained through the pid parent hierarchy". Tim has already asked about stopped/background processes in many questions such as unix.stackexchange.com/questions/490986 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/396840 .
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
Stephen Kitt actually addressed this in two of Tim's questions in 2018: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/447197 .
– JdeBP
yesterday
Stephen Kitt actually addressed this in two of Tim's questions in 2018: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/447197 .
– JdeBP
yesterday
Do you mean the answers to both questions are no?
– Tim
yesterday
Do you mean the answers to both questions are no?
– Tim
yesterday
That is correct the answers to both questions are no. Closing the handles does not disassociate the process from its terminal. The terminal still maintains ownership of the processes created under it, unless forked or nohup ed, or stopped and bg ed. This is maintained through the pid parent hierarchy.
– Strom
yesterday
That is correct the answers to both questions are no. Closing the handles does not disassociate the process from its terminal. The terminal still maintains ownership of the processes created under it, unless forked or nohup ed, or stopped and bg ed. This is maintained through the pid parent hierarchy.
– Strom
yesterday
That is yet another example of why one should always take comment answers with a large sackful of salt. As can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the "unless nohup ed" is yet more incorrect information (obviously so, if one considers what
nohup does), and as can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405755 , so too is "maintained through the pid parent hierarchy". Tim has already asked about stopped/background processes in many questions such as unix.stackexchange.com/questions/490986 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/396840 .– JdeBP
20 hours ago
That is yet another example of why one should always take comment answers with a large sackful of salt. As can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the "unless nohup ed" is yet more incorrect information (obviously so, if one considers what
nohup does), and as can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405755 , so too is "maintained through the pid parent hierarchy". Tim has already asked about stopped/background processes in many questions such as unix.stackexchange.com/questions/490986 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/396840 .– JdeBP
20 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
libc manual: "… All the processes in a session inherit the controlling terminal from the session leader.
A session leader that has control of a terminal is called the controlling process of that terminal. …"
According to typical "daemonize" scenario the only way to get rid of controlling terminal is to create new session. Closing file descriptors wouldn't do that.
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
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%2f492372%2fcan-a-non-controlling-process-detach-its-controlling-terminal-by-closing-its-f%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
libc manual: "… All the processes in a session inherit the controlling terminal from the session leader.
A session leader that has control of a terminal is called the controlling process of that terminal. …"
According to typical "daemonize" scenario the only way to get rid of controlling terminal is to create new session. Closing file descriptors wouldn't do that.
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
add a comment |
libc manual: "… All the processes in a session inherit the controlling terminal from the session leader.
A session leader that has control of a terminal is called the controlling process of that terminal. …"
According to typical "daemonize" scenario the only way to get rid of controlling terminal is to create new session. Closing file descriptors wouldn't do that.
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
add a comment |
libc manual: "… All the processes in a session inherit the controlling terminal from the session leader.
A session leader that has control of a terminal is called the controlling process of that terminal. …"
According to typical "daemonize" scenario the only way to get rid of controlling terminal is to create new session. Closing file descriptors wouldn't do that.
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
libc manual: "… All the processes in a session inherit the controlling terminal from the session leader.
A session leader that has control of a terminal is called the controlling process of that terminal. …"
According to typical "daemonize" scenario the only way to get rid of controlling terminal is to create new session. Closing file descriptors wouldn't do that.
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
answered yesterday
poige
4,0291543
4,0291543
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
Wouldn't there be a ioctl TIOCNOTTY that is able to detach session from controlling terminal?
– 炸鱼薯条德里克
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
obsolete: stackoverflow.com/a/8777697/990047
– poige
23 hours ago
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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%2f492372%2fcan-a-non-controlling-process-detach-its-controlling-terminal-by-closing-its-f%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
Stephen Kitt actually addressed this in two of Tim's questions in 2018: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/447197 .
– JdeBP
yesterday
Do you mean the answers to both questions are no?
– Tim
yesterday
That is correct the answers to both questions are no. Closing the handles does not disassociate the process from its terminal. The terminal still maintains ownership of the processes created under it, unless forked or nohup ed, or stopped and bg ed. This is maintained through the pid parent hierarchy.
– Strom
yesterday
That is yet another example of why one should always take comment answers with a large sackful of salt. As can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the "unless nohup ed" is yet more incorrect information (obviously so, if one considers what
nohupdoes), and as can be found in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405755 , so too is "maintained through the pid parent hierarchy". Tim has already asked about stopped/background processes in many questions such as unix.stackexchange.com/questions/490986 and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/396840 .– JdeBP
20 hours ago