[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150530055018.GB18797@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:50:19 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [john-core] Getting John's stdout unbuffered for Johnny
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 08:26:33PM +0200, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> (Apparently, SIGHUP will not be forwarded to forked processes. This
> might need to be fixed, and/or you might need to send SIGHUP to all
> forked processes.)
Yes. We could forward SIGHUP, but this would sometimes result in
duplicate updates of the .rec files on "killall -HUP john". Harmless,
but a bit nasty. I wrote "sometimes" because the handler merely sets
"event_save = event_pending = 1;" so this would only result in duplicate
processing if the main program code manages to notice this pending event
before the second signal arrives. And I think there would be no
duplicate updates of the .log files unless there are any new log records
by the time the second signal arrives. So this addition is probably
acceptable if needed.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
