so-called-hang-on-exit

[Michael Robinton]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Carson Gaspar wrote:

>
>
> --On Monday, August 05, 2002 2:53 PM -0700 Michael Robinton
> <michael at bizsystems.com> wrote:
>
> >> The client does know that there are background processes left still
> >> holding the pty open. How? Because the client requested and got a pty,
> >> the sshd has sent a session-exit message, and the channel is still open.
> >
> > This is an oversimplification of the problem and what I consider to be the
> > main reason why the problem has not been fixed. Consider the situation
>
> Pay attention. Nico said that there _should_ be such an option, but that it
> should be implemented in the client, not in the server. That way, the
> preference is per-session, not global for the whole box.
>
> Yelling at people who agree with you isn't productive.
>

That still does not keep our servers from filling up with hung sshd
sessions started by our user clients that are brain dead. I want to
terminate the connection for any sshd process started on one of our
servers whenever the client attempts to exit.

And.... I'm not yelling at the people that don't agree with me. I'm merely
pointing out that there is a significant portion of the user community
that wants ... no ... needs an option to accomodate the reality of
operating a data center. Refusing to put a need option in place that has
repeatedly been asked for AND whose absence has been report repeatedly as
a bug does not do the user community any service when it is done for the
sake of "purity". For those that wish to be pure, having an option
(default) for "pure" daemon response is quite reasonable. Likewise, I'd
like to be a "dirty dog" and have our systems simply drop connections that
attempt to disconnect. Give me the option on a per server basis and I'll
shut up. :-)

Such an option does not hurt the purists and is satisfies the needs of the
real world as well.

Michael