On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:33:53PM +0000, Mike Gabriel wrote: > I am not sure, if the patch is not a functional overkill.
Hi Mike, I don't think that this is the case: > My observation was, that the x2goagent processes got killed by killer. Yes, but if the user's x2goagent process gets killed, all other processes belonging to this user will be killed as well because the user session isn't registered. OTOH stale x2goagent processes may still exist from sessions that have been messed up by the user. At least this has been the case when I used NX technology at school to let people connect from home. (Years ago, though, things might be different nowadays.) > So maybe, we should protect those only. IMO stale x2goagent processes should be killed. That's why the patch searches for users with a x2goruncommand process. If this one exists, user applications are actually running and nothing belonging to these users should be killed. > For the session applications, I am currently working on a sessreg > based utmp/wtmp patch against X2Go Server. That sounds very good. Patching the killer script would be obsolete in that case. Wolfgang
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
