On Saturday 19 March 2005 18:55, shimi wrote: > Still, why isn't that a good idea? You're leaving the program that sshd > spawned (and it knows what it spawned, right?), which means you > obviously want to stop ssh doing "his thing" for which you negotiated in > the first place... I cannot see a reason to leave a stale session, which > you really can't do anything with (like running 'fg' to take the process > back to your control and communicate with it) ?
Assume for a moment you use ssh to tunnel an X11 session or a VNC session back to your local host... Now let's reverse your question -- why should we leave a useless shell process who has already finished his duty in life (i.e: starting the said session)? Why can't sshd figure out that the tunneled file descriptors are still open (which means they are still needed)? Now guess what? The amazing thing is that sshd like any Linux process can tell when it's EOF -- and our nice daemon will kill the connection only if: - There is nothing to read from the file descriptors (EOF) - Or the client broke the connection (e.g: via ~.) Simple life. -- Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron ICQ UIN: 16527398 "When you understand UNIX, you will understand the world. When you understand NT....you will understand NT" - Richard Thieme ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
