On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 03.05.15 19:10, Mantas Mikulėnas (graw...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Víctor Fernández <vfr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Ok, Thanks for your reply. > > > > > > But, just out of curiosity, why init process gets down with a SIGABRT > and > > > not with a SIGKILL (9), being this a signal which cannot be caught, > blocked > > > or ignored? > > > > > > > pid 1 is allowed to catch SIGKILL, and usually does so, so that you can > > sigkill everything (e.g. Alt+SysRq+I) and still have a working system > > afterwards. > > Hmm, it is allowed to do catch SIGKILL? That would be news to me, and > systemd certainly doesn't. Do you have any reference? I'm not sure exactly. It *seems* I was wrong; the comment in the source says "init gets no signals it doesn't want" (i.e. no custom handler), but doesn't actually allow installing a handler for SIGKILL. -- Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
