On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:23:25 +0100 (CET) Tomas Pospisek wrote: > (I'm Cc'ing Matt, checkrestart's original author here since he might > provide valuable insight)
Hello Tomas,
thanks a lot for following up on my bug report!
> Francesco Poli writes in his bugreport:
>
> > I've just noticed that checkrestart fails to show getty processes,
> > when they need to be restarted.
>
> And proceeds to patch out util-linux from the packages to be excluded from
> being reported:
>
> - ignorelist = [ 'util-linux', 'screen' ]
> + ignorelist = [ 'screen' ]
>
> The reason for util-linux not being reported is - I think - precisely the
> getty process. The problem with killing getty is, that if there are users
> logged in, killing getty will terminate their sessions and whatever they
> were doing at that moment - which is probably not what we want.
This sounds really really strange to me.
I have never had any single issue with killing getty processes with
# killall -TERM getty
The needed getty processes are automatically re-spawned and nothing
seems to happen to users who are logged in.
I've just retried to do the following:
0) I logged in as my regular user and then started an X session:
$ startx & logout
After that, I started a number of graphical applications
1) I switched back to a virtual console ([Ctrl+Alt+F2]) and logged in
again as my regular user
2) I switched to another virtual console ([Ctrl+Alt+F3]) and logged in
as root
3) as root, I looked at the running getty processes:
# ps aux | grep getty
only four getty processes were running (for tty4, tty5, tty6, and
tty1)
4) as root, I killed all the getty processes:
# killall -TERM getty
# ps aux | grep getty
the same four getty instances (for tty4, tty5, tty6, and tty1)
were re-spawned with different PIDs
5) nothing special happened to the root console session, to the
regular user console session, or to the regular user X session
So, in summary, I cannot see any problem with killing getty processes...
Could you please elaborate?
Which bad consequences do you see in such an action?
I am a bit puzzled...
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp6F4Ylz5OJt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
