From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Cameron Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:56:10 +0000 Subject: Re: Re: about pppd termination? Message-Id: <20080522005609.GI6559@hp.com> List-Id: References: <200805211447103125311@foxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200805211447103125311@foxmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:38:39AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > There does still remain the question of how pppd gets any > connector/disconnector processes to stop if pppd has to terminate for > other reasons, such as getting a SIGSEGV, though. Yes, or SIGKILL. I remember one user who habitually used -9 and then complained that the connector (pptp) wasn't terminating forthwith. Tracking each process created would be effective, and could remove the need for a process group kill. I'm just not sure if that level of change is justified. -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ HP Open Source, Volunteer http://opensource.hp.com/ PPTP Client Project, Release Engineer http://pptpclient.sourceforge.net/