similar to: [Bug 396] New: sshd orphans processes when no pty allocated

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 ------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au 2002-09-12 23:26 ------- Created an attachment (id=145) --> (http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=145&action=view) Send HUP to sshd child procs on exit ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 Andrew McNabb <amcnabb at mcnabbs.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amcnabb at mcnabbs.org --- Comment #16 from Andrew McNabb <amcnabb at mcnabbs.org> 2012-02-10 05:21:40 EST

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 Marc Herbert <marc.herbert+mindrot at gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marc.herbert+mindrot at gmail. | |com --- Comment #14

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 dtucker at zip.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |patch ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 ------- Additional Comments From dtucker at zip.com.au 2003-05-04 11:14 ------- Does anyone object to this patch? And if not, is it something that should go to OpenBSD? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 ------- Additional Comments From markus at openbsd.org 2003-06-05 00:09 ------- sending signals could be dangerous, depending on the permissions of the sending process, e.g. a root-owned sshd sending to a setuid process. but i'm not sure. we had similar code there before. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 ------- Additional Comments From djm at mindrot.org 2005-02-14 11:55 ------- Is this not another manifestation of the infamous bug #52? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 Martin d'Anjou <point14 at magma.ca> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |point14 at magma.ca --- Comment #13 from Martin d'Anjou <point14 at magma.ca> 2008-12-13

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 djm at mindrot.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Hello everyone, I've look at the latest nightly snapshot but I could find this bug is fixed on the source code. Is there any progression to fix that issue. This bug is open for almost 10 years, come on guys :) >List: openssh-unix-dev >Subject: Re: killing remote commands >From: HAUTREUX Matthieu <matthieu.hautreux () cea ! fr> >Date: 2010-10-21

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396 Tyler Riddle <triddle at gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |triddle at gmail.com --- Comment #20 from Tyler Riddle <triddle at gmail.com> --- I just hit the condition of

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223 dtucker at zip.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OS/Version|FreeBSD |All Platform|ix86 |All Version|3.0.1p1 |-current ------- Additional

Hi all, We use linux-2.4.20 in one of our products and we've found what looks to be a problem in the bridge module. (I know this is old code but we don't send our customers kernel upgrades unless we really have to!) The problem is that some of our bridges have become orphaned from the bridge module. Specifically ifconfig ourbridgename shows that the device "ourbridgename"

Hi, I am using btrfs for remote backups (via rsync), with daily and weekly snapshots. I see these messages in kern.log: Jul 18 07:09:43 backup1 kernel: [3437126.458374] btrfs: unlinked 9 orphans Jul 18 12:01:01 backup1 kernel: [3454604.905856] btrfs: unlinked 1 orphans Jul 18 13:01:51 backup1 kernel: [3458254.990199] btrfs: unlinked 1 orphans Jul 19 04:01:41 backup1 kernel: [3512244.236347]

Currently we only queue recovery during mount if the journal is dirty. If the last node holding orphans in other node's orphan directory dies and is the first one to mount then it only recovers its orphan directory which leaves the orphans in other nodes slots. Since the other nodes journals are clean they will not queue to recover their orphan directory. This patch queues to recover orphans

Hi, I received the message: btrfs: unlinked 34 orphans Just out of couriosity: what does it mean ? Thanks in advance Bye, David Arendt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hello, I am running kernel 2.6.4 on XScale/ARM with BusyBox. Quite frequently after shutdown I have a number of orphaned inodes on the ext3 filesystem. (I have yet to figure out the precise cause of the orphans, but I believe it has to do with umount failing at shutdown due to a bug in BusyBox init that does not properly kill processes.) It is my understanding the orphaned inode list should be

e.g. class Asset < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :asset_number, :make, :model, :location, :name, :serial_number validates_numericality_of :asset_number validates_uniqueness_of :asset_number belongs_to :user belongs_to :location belongs_to :asset_type, :foreign_key => ''type_id'' end class Location < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :name

During recovery, a node recovers orphans in it's slot and the dead node(s). But if the dead nodes were holding orphans in offline slots, they will be left unrecovered. If the dead node is the last one to die and is holding orphans in other slots and is the first one to mount, then it only recovers it's own slot, which leaves orphans in offline slots. This patch queues complete_recovery

During recovery, a node recovers orphans in it's slot and the dead node(s). But if the dead nodes were holding orphans in offline slots, they will be left unrecovered. If the dead node is the last one to die and is holding orphans in other slots and is the first one to mount, then it only recovers it's own slot, which leaves orphans in offline slots. This patch queues complete_recovery