Re: [PATCH] Fix exit status of signal handlers in shell scripts

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:28:50PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Dmitry V. Levin on 1/30/2010 12:18 PM:
> > The value of `$?' on entrance to signal handlers in shell scripts
> > cannot be relied upon, so set the exit code explicitly to
> > 128 + SIGTERM == 143.
> > * src/Makefile.am (sc_tight_scope): Use `exit 143' in signal handler.
> 
> I'm not sure I like the direction this is headed in.  Exiting with 143
> when a trap is known to be caused by SIGTERM might be okay, but it would
> be even better to reraise the signal and make the shell also exit by
> SIGTERM (in case the caller can distinguish between exit by signal and
> normal exit by status > 128).  But blindly giving status 143 for other
> signals, like SIGHUP, is just wrong.  If you are going to munge trap
> handlers to account for races, then you need one trap handler per signal
> with an appropriate exit status for each.

One trap handler per signal is overkill in most cases.
I think that any non-zero exit status would be sufficient.


-- 
ldv

pgpRn7XIJ_4Pp.pgp
Description: PGP signature