Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 11
    " for security reasons I want to launch an unkillable process." Just a note - if this was allowed, people could easily be exploiting it for nefarious reasons - e.g., launch an unstoppable fork bomb. Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 19:22
  • 34
    This sounds like an XY problem. I suspect that whatever you are really trying to achieve, an unkillable process is not the way to do it. "For security reasons" is very vague. What exactly do you want to prevent the user from doing? What access do they have? Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 19:30
  • 5
    Any process which is unkillable for all intents and purposes is a virus. Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 22:06
  • 3
    @NateEldredge: Rather, have the program ignore the signals. That's the typical way to do it; otherwise, someone could send a SIGINT or SIGTSTP directly to the process, bypassing the terminal. Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 23:26
  • 2
    @NoahSpurrier: I am imagining a situation where you have a user who can type things on the console, but who can't otherwise execute code on the computer (like a kiosk). You set it up so that no key that they can type will have an unexpected effect. If they can execute other code, then ignoring SIGINT and SIGTSTP and SIGQUIT doesn't help; anyone who could send those signals directly to the process could also send SIGKILL or SIGSTOP which you can't ignore. Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 17:10