Exit shell with shortcut (not typing exit) that closes session properly
I use a ProxyJump command for a number of ssh sessions I use daily, and also switch users a lot on these sessions and having to type exit 3 or 4 times in a row isn't too fun.
I am aware of newline + ~ + . to terminate an ssh session, I still have to check if it terminates it amicably like an exit would, but how do you exit all sessions in the current shell with a single command or shortcut such that typing exit 3 or 4 times in my case becomes a one-time thing?
bash shell session
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
add a comment |
I use a ProxyJump command for a number of ssh sessions I use daily, and also switch users a lot on these sessions and having to type exit 3 or 4 times in a row isn't too fun.
I am aware of newline + ~ + . to terminate an ssh session, I still have to check if it terminates it amicably like an exit would, but how do you exit all sessions in the current shell with a single command or shortcut such that typing exit 3 or 4 times in my case becomes a one-time thing?
bash shell session
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
2
~.just disconnects your SSH client (it's useful when the network has disappeared, for example). Normally, the SSH daemon will recognise that and signal its session withSIGHUP, so it's not quite the same as quitting the shell normally (but it's useful if you can't get any response from the shell).
– Toby Speight
yesterday
add a comment |
I use a ProxyJump command for a number of ssh sessions I use daily, and also switch users a lot on these sessions and having to type exit 3 or 4 times in a row isn't too fun.
I am aware of newline + ~ + . to terminate an ssh session, I still have to check if it terminates it amicably like an exit would, but how do you exit all sessions in the current shell with a single command or shortcut such that typing exit 3 or 4 times in my case becomes a one-time thing?
bash shell session
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
I use a ProxyJump command for a number of ssh sessions I use daily, and also switch users a lot on these sessions and having to type exit 3 or 4 times in a row isn't too fun.
I am aware of newline + ~ + . to terminate an ssh session, I still have to check if it terminates it amicably like an exit would, but how do you exit all sessions in the current shell with a single command or shortcut such that typing exit 3 or 4 times in my case becomes a one-time thing?
bash shell session
bash shell session
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
asked yesterday
tsujptsujp
320211
320211
2
~.just disconnects your SSH client (it's useful when the network has disappeared, for example). Normally, the SSH daemon will recognise that and signal its session withSIGHUP, so it's not quite the same as quitting the shell normally (but it's useful if you can't get any response from the shell).
– Toby Speight
yesterday
add a comment |
2
~.just disconnects your SSH client (it's useful when the network has disappeared, for example). Normally, the SSH daemon will recognise that and signal its session withSIGHUP, so it's not quite the same as quitting the shell normally (but it's useful if you can't get any response from the shell).
– Toby Speight
yesterday
2
2
~. just disconnects your SSH client (it's useful when the network has disappeared, for example). Normally, the SSH daemon will recognise that and signal its session with SIGHUP, so it's not quite the same as quitting the shell normally (but it's useful if you can't get any response from the shell).– Toby Speight
yesterday
~. just disconnects your SSH client (it's useful when the network has disappeared, for example). Normally, the SSH daemon will recognise that and signal its session with SIGHUP, so it's not quite the same as quitting the shell normally (but it's useful if you can't get any response from the shell).– Toby Speight
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Ctrl-D will exit a shell in many cases. It is quicker than typing exit Enter. It's still not a single command to terminate everything, but holding Ctrl and hitting D several times is easier and faster. Not sure how valuable this is for your use case.
Discussed in detail here.
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
2
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out anrmcommand and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
Peschke is using theviterminal input bindings.
– JdeBP
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Typing ~. actually does the trick of closing all the "nested" connections through to the deepest.
It does so with the amicable exit you want as long as all your shells are configured to handle SIGHUP as a graceful death. Bash does so by default. You can easily check the amicable exit for your set-up by e.g. seeing whether the .bash_history files of your deeper sessions get properly updated after the ~., or if you set your bash-es not to update .bash_history upon exit then you might set a trap on the EXIT event (or in your ~/.bash_logout) with a command that writes something somewhere and later see whether it got executed.
Besides, I’m not sure what you mean by "exit all sessions in current shell". Each interactive bash is just one session, and the commands you type go always only to the deepest shell of the ProxyJump chain. If you meant "the background jobs in the current shell", bash does send SIGHUP to all its jobs on receiving SIGHUP by the ssh daemon upon the ~. , therefore such exit should be fully amicable if those running jobs react properly to a SIGHUP.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507011%2fexit-shell-with-shortcut-not-typing-exit-that-closes-session-properly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Ctrl-D will exit a shell in many cases. It is quicker than typing exit Enter. It's still not a single command to terminate everything, but holding Ctrl and hitting D several times is easier and faster. Not sure how valuable this is for your use case.
Discussed in detail here.
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
2
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out anrmcommand and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
Peschke is using theviterminal input bindings.
– JdeBP
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Ctrl-D will exit a shell in many cases. It is quicker than typing exit Enter. It's still not a single command to terminate everything, but holding Ctrl and hitting D several times is easier and faster. Not sure how valuable this is for your use case.
Discussed in detail here.
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
2
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out anrmcommand and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
Peschke is using theviterminal input bindings.
– JdeBP
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Ctrl-D will exit a shell in many cases. It is quicker than typing exit Enter. It's still not a single command to terminate everything, but holding Ctrl and hitting D several times is easier and faster. Not sure how valuable this is for your use case.
Discussed in detail here.
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
Ctrl-D will exit a shell in many cases. It is quicker than typing exit Enter. It's still not a single command to terminate everything, but holding Ctrl and hitting D several times is easier and faster. Not sure how valuable this is for your use case.
Discussed in detail here.
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
edited yesterday
DopeGhoti
46.3k56190
46.3k56190
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
answered yesterday
0xSheepdog0xSheepdog
1,5121924
1,5121924
2
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out anrmcommand and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
Peschke is using theviterminal input bindings.
– JdeBP
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out anrmcommand and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
Peschke is using theviterminal input bindings.
– JdeBP
15 hours ago
2
2
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:
– JdeBP
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out an
rm command and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.– Peschke
yesterday
Be careful with CTRL+D. In bash, if you have input any characters in your prompt, hitting CTRL+D will execute it the same way Enter would. In other words, don’t type out an
rm command and then hit CTRL+D if you didn’t want to execute it. I don’t see this behavior in ksh.– Peschke
yesterday
2
2
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@Peschke On every system I've ever used Ctrl+D does nothing if I've typed something. I've never seen the behavior you describe.
– John Kugelman
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
@JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.
– Peschke
yesterday
2
2
Peschke is using the
vi terminal input bindings.– JdeBP
15 hours ago
Peschke is using the
vi terminal input bindings.– JdeBP
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Typing ~. actually does the trick of closing all the "nested" connections through to the deepest.
It does so with the amicable exit you want as long as all your shells are configured to handle SIGHUP as a graceful death. Bash does so by default. You can easily check the amicable exit for your set-up by e.g. seeing whether the .bash_history files of your deeper sessions get properly updated after the ~., or if you set your bash-es not to update .bash_history upon exit then you might set a trap on the EXIT event (or in your ~/.bash_logout) with a command that writes something somewhere and later see whether it got executed.
Besides, I’m not sure what you mean by "exit all sessions in current shell". Each interactive bash is just one session, and the commands you type go always only to the deepest shell of the ProxyJump chain. If you meant "the background jobs in the current shell", bash does send SIGHUP to all its jobs on receiving SIGHUP by the ssh daemon upon the ~. , therefore such exit should be fully amicable if those running jobs react properly to a SIGHUP.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Typing ~. actually does the trick of closing all the "nested" connections through to the deepest.
It does so with the amicable exit you want as long as all your shells are configured to handle SIGHUP as a graceful death. Bash does so by default. You can easily check the amicable exit for your set-up by e.g. seeing whether the .bash_history files of your deeper sessions get properly updated after the ~., or if you set your bash-es not to update .bash_history upon exit then you might set a trap on the EXIT event (or in your ~/.bash_logout) with a command that writes something somewhere and later see whether it got executed.
Besides, I’m not sure what you mean by "exit all sessions in current shell". Each interactive bash is just one session, and the commands you type go always only to the deepest shell of the ProxyJump chain. If you meant "the background jobs in the current shell", bash does send SIGHUP to all its jobs on receiving SIGHUP by the ssh daemon upon the ~. , therefore such exit should be fully amicable if those running jobs react properly to a SIGHUP.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Typing ~. actually does the trick of closing all the "nested" connections through to the deepest.
It does so with the amicable exit you want as long as all your shells are configured to handle SIGHUP as a graceful death. Bash does so by default. You can easily check the amicable exit for your set-up by e.g. seeing whether the .bash_history files of your deeper sessions get properly updated after the ~., or if you set your bash-es not to update .bash_history upon exit then you might set a trap on the EXIT event (or in your ~/.bash_logout) with a command that writes something somewhere and later see whether it got executed.
Besides, I’m not sure what you mean by "exit all sessions in current shell". Each interactive bash is just one session, and the commands you type go always only to the deepest shell of the ProxyJump chain. If you meant "the background jobs in the current shell", bash does send SIGHUP to all its jobs on receiving SIGHUP by the ssh daemon upon the ~. , therefore such exit should be fully amicable if those running jobs react properly to a SIGHUP.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Typing ~. actually does the trick of closing all the "nested" connections through to the deepest.
It does so with the amicable exit you want as long as all your shells are configured to handle SIGHUP as a graceful death. Bash does so by default. You can easily check the amicable exit for your set-up by e.g. seeing whether the .bash_history files of your deeper sessions get properly updated after the ~., or if you set your bash-es not to update .bash_history upon exit then you might set a trap on the EXIT event (or in your ~/.bash_logout) with a command that writes something somewhere and later see whether it got executed.
Besides, I’m not sure what you mean by "exit all sessions in current shell". Each interactive bash is just one session, and the commands you type go always only to the deepest shell of the ProxyJump chain. If you meant "the background jobs in the current shell", bash does send SIGHUP to all its jobs on receiving SIGHUP by the ssh daemon upon the ~. , therefore such exit should be fully amicable if those running jobs react properly to a SIGHUP.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
answered yesterday
LL3LL3
311
311
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
LL3 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507011%2fexit-shell-with-shortcut-not-typing-exit-that-closes-session-properly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
~.just disconnects your SSH client (it's useful when the network has disappeared, for example). Normally, the SSH daemon will recognise that and signal its session withSIGHUP, so it's not quite the same as quitting the shell normally (but it's useful if you can't get any response from the shell).– Toby Speight
yesterday