What's the difference between calling daemon() and calling fork(), setsid(), fork(), etc.?
I've been looking at creating Unix dæmons, and there seem to be two methods. The long-winded one, which seems to come up when searching is to call fork()
, setsid()
, fork()
again, chdir()
to somewhere safe, set umask()
and, finally, close()
stdin
开发者_JAVA技巧, stdout
and stderr
.
Running man daemon
, however, brings up information on a daemon()
function, which seems to do all the same stuff as above. Are there any differences between the two approaches or is daemon()
just a convenience function that does the same thing as the long-winded method? Is either one better, especially for a novice C programmer?
The daemon
function is not defined in POSIX, so its implementation (if any) could behave differently on different platforms.
On Linux with glibc, daemon
only does one fork, optionally chdir
s (but only to /
, you can't specify a path), does not touch umask
, and does not close the std*
descriptors (it optionally reopens them to /dev/null
though). (source)
So it depends on the platform, and at least one implementation does less than what you do. If you need all of what you're doing, stick with that (or stick to a platform where the daemon
function does exactly that).
Note that daemon
is not conforming to any standard. Better use standard conforming functions (like POSIX-defined fork
and setsid
).
The daemon call summarizes the long-winded fork procedure, and I don't recall any implementation that does anything more.
Since daemon() is a high-level concept, it's definitely to be preferred for novice and experienced programmers.
精彩评论