Re: [gentoo-dev] SIGTERM vs SIGINT

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 00:13 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 22:35 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > As more and more init scripts "stopping" can trigger other services to
> > restart, it becomes very desirable for this not to happen. So I propose for
> > the next baselayout release (1.12.0_pre17) to default start-stop-daemon calls
> > to SIGINT for stop commands instead of the current SIGTERM. My testing on my
> > boxes has no adverse effects so far.
> >
> > So ...... thoughts? Good or bad idea? Reasons and explanations welcome :)
>
> From a standards point of view, SIGINT is strictly meant to be an
> interupt from the keyboard, and SIGTERM is there to notify the process
> that it should stop.
>
> I'm uneasy about going against accepted, standardised, and decades-old
> UNIX behaviour at this level.
>
> Why are bind et al getting into the state that they do?  If you attach a
> debugger to the running processes, what state are they in?  Why does
> stopping dhcpd using SIGINT et al prevent that?  What is dhcpd doing in
> its signal handler?
>
> That seems to be the real issue that needs investigating and fixing.  I
> feel that changing the behaviour of start-stop-daemon is masking the
> symptom, rather than fixing the bug.
>

I would have to agree - it sounds more like dhcpcd is doing something
bad when it receives stop and runs resolvconf.  So rather figure out
what it does wrong, and if really critical, at least just make its SSD
call use SIGINT and not SIGTERM then doing it tree wide - until you
figured out what is wrong that is.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer