Does nohup apply only to a child process of a shell process, but not to a child process of a non-shell...











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












nohup is an external program. How can it change the action of SIGHUP by a child process of a shell process to be "ignore"? (in terms of some arguments when the child process invokes fork() and/or execve() on the program which follows nohup?)



Does nohup apply only to a child process of a shell process, but not to a child process of a non-shell process?



Thanks.






nohup sighup







share|improve this question
























  • nohup itself is the child process
    – frostschutz
    Nov 26 at 22:24

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












nohup is an external program. How can it change the action of SIGHUP by a child process of a shell process to be "ignore"? (in terms of some arguments when the child process invokes fork() and/or execve() on the program which follows nohup?)



Does nohup apply only to a child process of a shell process, but not to a child process of a non-shell process?



Thanks.






nohup sighup







share|improve this question
























  • nohup itself is the child process
    – frostschutz
    Nov 26 at 22:24















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











nohup is an external program. How can it change the action of SIGHUP by a child process of a shell process to be "ignore"? (in terms of some arguments when the child process invokes fork() and/or execve() on the program which follows nohup?)



Does nohup apply only to a child process of a shell process, but not to a child process of a non-shell process?



Thanks.






nohup sighup







share|improve this question















nohup is an external program. How can it change the action of SIGHUP by a child process of a shell process to be "ignore"? (in terms of some arguments when the child process invokes fork() and/or execve() on the program which follows nohup?)



Does nohup apply only to a child process of a shell process, but not to a child process of a non-shell process?



Thanks.






nohup sighup




nohup sighup






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 26 at 21:49

























asked Nov 26 at 21:40









Tim

25.1k72243441




25.1k72243441












  • nohup itself is the child process
    – frostschutz
    Nov 26 at 22:24




















  • nohup itself is the child process
    – frostschutz
    Nov 26 at 22:24


















nohup itself is the child process
– frostschutz
Nov 26 at 22:24






nohup itself is the child process
– frostschutz
Nov 26 at 22:24












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










nohup configures itself to ignore the SIGHUP signal; see for example the GNU implementation. The POSIX specification for nohup states that




At the time the named utility is invoked, the SIGHUP signal shall be set to be ignored.




As also specified by POSIX, child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP.



nohup’s handling applies to any child of nohup, regardless of nohup’s parent process. nohup does not (nor can it) affect the way signals are handled by any of its parents, whether they’re shells or not.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:07












  • No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:13










  • Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:16










  • I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:23










  • Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
    – Tim
    Nov 27 at 14:50











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484308%2fdoes-nohup-apply-only-to-a-child-process-of-a-shell-process-but-not-to-a-child%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










nohup configures itself to ignore the SIGHUP signal; see for example the GNU implementation. The POSIX specification for nohup states that




At the time the named utility is invoked, the SIGHUP signal shall be set to be ignored.




As also specified by POSIX, child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP.



nohup’s handling applies to any child of nohup, regardless of nohup’s parent process. nohup does not (nor can it) affect the way signals are handled by any of its parents, whether they’re shells or not.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:07












  • No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:13










  • Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:16










  • I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:23










  • Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
    – Tim
    Nov 27 at 14:50















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










nohup configures itself to ignore the SIGHUP signal; see for example the GNU implementation. The POSIX specification for nohup states that




At the time the named utility is invoked, the SIGHUP signal shall be set to be ignored.




As also specified by POSIX, child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP.



nohup’s handling applies to any child of nohup, regardless of nohup’s parent process. nohup does not (nor can it) affect the way signals are handled by any of its parents, whether they’re shells or not.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:07












  • No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:13










  • Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:16










  • I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:23










  • Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
    – Tim
    Nov 27 at 14:50













up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






nohup configures itself to ignore the SIGHUP signal; see for example the GNU implementation. The POSIX specification for nohup states that




At the time the named utility is invoked, the SIGHUP signal shall be set to be ignored.




As also specified by POSIX, child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP.



nohup’s handling applies to any child of nohup, regardless of nohup’s parent process. nohup does not (nor can it) affect the way signals are handled by any of its parents, whether they’re shells or not.






share|improve this answer














nohup configures itself to ignore the SIGHUP signal; see for example the GNU implementation. The POSIX specification for nohup states that




At the time the named utility is invoked, the SIGHUP signal shall be set to be ignored.




As also specified by POSIX, child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP.



nohup’s handling applies to any child of nohup, regardless of nohup’s parent process. nohup does not (nor can it) affect the way signals are handled by any of its parents, whether they’re shells or not.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 26 at 22:20

























answered Nov 26 at 21:57









Stephen Kitt

159k24353428




159k24353428












  • Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:07












  • No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:13










  • Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:16










  • I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:23










  • Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
    – Tim
    Nov 27 at 14:50


















  • Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:07












  • No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:13










  • Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
    – Tim
    Nov 26 at 22:16










  • I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 26 at 22:23










  • Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
    – Tim
    Nov 27 at 14:50
















Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:07






Thanks. "child processes inherit ignored signals other than SIGCHLD, so any process started by nohup after it’s ignored SIGHUP will itself ignore SIGHUP." Is this specified as some argument to execve()?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:07














No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
– Stephen Kitt
Nov 26 at 22:13




No, it’s how all the exec functions are specified, in all cases. There is no exec argument you can use to change that.
– Stephen Kitt
Nov 26 at 22:13












Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:16




Is it that way only for implementing nohup?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:16












I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
– Stephen Kitt
Nov 26 at 22:23




I suspect that nohup was taken into consideration when that part of POSIX was written, but it wasn’t the only consideration; see the rationale section on exec for details.
– Stephen Kitt
Nov 26 at 22:23












Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
– Tim
Nov 27 at 14:50




Thanks. Guru Stephen, may I call your attention to unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484344/…
– Tim
Nov 27 at 14:50


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484308%2fdoes-nohup-apply-only-to-a-child-process-of-a-shell-process-but-not-to-a-child%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

サソリ

Image
この記事は検証可能な参考文献や出典が全く示されていないか、不十分です。 出典を追加して記事の信頼性向上にご協力ください。 （ 2019年1月 ） 「 サソリ 」のその他の用法については「サソリ (曖昧さ回避)」をご覧ください。 「 スコーピオン 」と「 スコルピオン 」はこの項目へ転送されています。その他の用法については「スコーピオン」をご覧ください。 サソリ目 生息年代: 430–0 Ma PreЄ Є O S D C P T J K Pg N シルル紀前期-現世 ダイオウサソリ（ Pandinus Imperator ） 分類 界 : 動物界 Animalia 門 : 節足動物門 Arthropoda 亜門 : 鋏角亜門 Chelicerata 綱 : クモガタ綱 Arachnida 目 : サソリ目 Scorpiones 学名 Scorpiones C. L. Koch, 1837 英名 Scorpion 上科 Pseudochactoidea キョクトウサソリ上科 Buthoidea Chaeriloidea Chactoidea Iuroidea Scorpionoidea サソリ （ サソリ類 、 蠍 、 蝎 、 scorpion ）は、鋏角亜門・クモガタ綱の サソリ目 （ Scorpiones ）に属する節足動物の総称である。体の前端に鋏型の触肢、後端に毒針を有する捕食者である。 1700種以上を含め、最古の化石記録は4億3千万年前のシルル紀まで遡る。有毒生物として広く知られるが、人間の命にかかわる毒を持つものはごく一部の種類に過ぎない。 目次 1 形態 1.1 前体 1.2 後体 1.2.1 中体 1.2.2 終体 2 雌雄 3 生態 3.1 天敵 3.2 生殖 4 分布 5 毒 6 蛍光現象 7 分類
Read more

広島県道265号伴広島線

Image
一般県道 広島県道265号伴広島線 路線延長 km 起点 広島県広島市安佐南区伴東7丁目 終点 広島県広島市中区榎町 接続する 主な道路 （記法） 広島県道38号広島豊平線 広島県道71号広島湯来線 山陽自動車道五日市IC 国道183号（ 国道261号重複） ■テンプレート（■ノート ■使い方） ■PJ道路 広島県道265号伴広島線 （ひろしまけんどう265ごう ともひろしません）は広島県広島市安佐南区から広島県広島市中区を結ぶ一般県道である。 目次 1 路線データ 2 通過する自治体 3 見どころ 4 接続道路 4.1 本線 4.2 旧道 5 別名 6 関連項目 路線データ 本線 起点：広島市安佐南区伴東7丁目・大原下橋南詰交差点（広島県道38号広島豊平線（本線・旧道）交点） 終点：広島市中区榎町・十日市交差点（国道183号（国道261号重用）交点） 総延長： 旧道 起点：広島市安佐南区伴東4丁目・新細坂交差点（広島県道38号広島豊平線交点） 終点：広島市安佐南区伴中央4丁目・寺組橋(南)交差点（広島県道265号伴広島線（本線）交点） 総延長： 通過する自治体 広島県 広島市（安佐南区、佐伯区、西区、中区） 見どころ 広島高速交通広島新交通1号線（アストラムライン） 広島広域公園 広島広域公園陸上競技場（広島ビッグアーチ） 己斐峠 己斐橋（太田川放水路） 天満橋（天満川） 接続道路 本線 広島県道38号広島豊平線（本線・旧道）（広島市安佐南区伴東7丁目・大原下橋南詰交差点〔起点〕） 広島県道71号広島湯来線（本線）（広島市安佐南区伴中央2丁目・伴交番入口交差点 - 広島市安佐南区伴中央4丁目・寺組橋(南)交差点間で重用） 広島県道71号広島湯来線（旧道）（広島県道265号伴広島線（旧道）重用）（広島市安佐南区伴中央4丁目・寺組橋(南)交差点） 広島県道71号広島湯来線（広島市安佐南区伴中央4丁目・寺組橋(南)交差点 - 広島市佐伯区五日市町石内・五月が丘(南)交差点間で重用）
Read more

Setup Asymptote in Texstudio

Image
0 Good time of the day! I am trying to compile the following file: documentclass[12pt]{article} usepackage[inline]{asymptote} begin{document} Here is a venn diagram produced with Asymptote, drawn to width 4cm: defA{A} defB{V{B}} begin{figure} begin{center} begin{asy} size(4cm,0); pen colour1=red; pen colour2=green; pair z0=(0,0); pair z1=(-1,0); pair z2=(1,0); real r=1.5; path c1=circle(z1,r); path c2=circle(z2,r); fill(c1,colour1); fill(c2,colour2); picture intersection=new picture; fill(intersection,c1,colour1+colour2); clip(intersection,c2); add(intersection); draw(c1); draw(c2); //draw("$A$",box,z1)
Read more