SIGTERM and SIGHUP handling

[paolo-losi]

I think SIGTERM should be handled as SIGINT is handled
SIGHUP should be ignored

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Commit 15a3686 makes sure SIGTERM is handled the same way as SIGINT, including not disabling these signals for future threads on MacOS X.

But why should we do that? Any clue why the SIGINT signal was not disabled for future threads on MacOS X in the first place?

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

@paolo-losi I'm a little rusty on signals... Why should SIGHUP be ignored? So that openfortivpn is not killed when the terminal from which it was started from is closed?

[paolo-losi]

exactly for that reason.

There are two sensible choices for openfortivpn:

• handle sighup as INT/TERM
• ignore it

I would favour the second choice.

BTW thanks for your patch

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

Commit DimitriPapadopoulos/openfortivpn@e05a912 should make sure SIGHUP is ignored.

[mrbaseman]

@DimitriPapadopoulos from my perspective we can land #134 now.

[DimitriPapadopoulos]

@mrbaseman I agree, but of course someone else than me needs to land it.

[mrbaseman]

I have just landed #134