[lkml]   [1996]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: setsid() semantics changed...
>Reading this carefully, I see that the current Linux behaviour _is_
>Posix compliant; read the first line after EPERM again. It says
>"The calling process is already a process group leader". So what I did,
>calling "setpgrp(0, getpgid(getppid()))" first is indeed the right thing
>to do if you really want to setsid(). I still think it doesn't make sense,
>but.. I'll attribute a section to the setsid() manpage about this if
>you want ;) (what is the latest version?)

Included below is a warning from the setsid(2) manpage for
Solaris. Something like this should be included in the linux man

A call to setsid() by a process that is a process group
leader will fail. A process can become a process group
leader by being the last member of a pipeline started by a
job control shell. Thus, a process that expects to be part
of a pipeline, and that calls setsid(), should always first
fork; the parent should exit and the child should call set-
sid(). This will ensure that the calling process will work
reliably when started by both job control shells and non-job
control shells.
Michiel Boland <>
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.042 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site