How to make a hard to kill process in Mac/Linux?

Question

I realize this sounds like something a malware program would do, so I understand if some of you are skeptical of my intentions. I would never do this for a program intended for other people's use, but I also realize other people might look at the answers and do it themselves.

My productivity goes way down when I am on the Internet, so I want to write a program to automatically turn off my connection every once in a while. But knowing me, I'll probably just sudo kill -9 it once it gets annoying, and I want to make that slightly difficult so that I don't do it all the time. Any suggestions for this (or other ways to acheive what I'm trying to do)? I'm thinking of things like naming it the same thing as another process so I have to spend some time figuring out what I need to kill, spawning a process frequently with a cron job, etc.

Answer 1

Have two processes watch each other, and when one disappears, the other immediately restarts it. Make them wait on semaphores held by the other, or something like that, so you're not sleeping and polling (with un-watched periods!).

And make them higher than normal priority.

Answer 2

Get a widget to display your bank balance (or spouse's frowning face, or your child's hungry face) on your desktop.

When you realize that there is a linkage between that and your wasteful Internet usage, you'll stop. You just need to create the proper stimulus/response feedback loop, and you'll respond appropriately.

Answer 3

do it as a kernel module, which you cannot simply 'kill' it.

Answer 4

From the Jargon file, always a good read for IT industry history buffs and those who want to know what we're talking about:

=====

Back in the mid-1970s, several of the system support staff at Motorola discovered a relatively simple way to crack system security on the Xerox CP-V timesharing system. Through a simple programming strategy, it was possible for a user program to trick the system into running a portion of the program in 'master mode' (supervisor state), in which memory protection does not apply. The program could then poke a large value into its 'privilege level' byte (normally write-protected) and could then proceed to bypass all levels of security within the file-management system, patch the system monitor, and do numerous other interesting things. In short, the barn door was wide open.

Motorola quite properly reported this problem to XEROX via an official 'level 1 SIDR' (a bug report with a perceived urgency of 'needs to be fixed yesterday'). Because the text of each SIDR was entered into a database that could be viewed by quite a number of people, Motorola followed the approved procedure: they simply reported the problem as 'Security SIDR', and attached all of the necessary documentation, ways-to-reproduce, etc. separately.

Xerox sat on their thumbs...they either didn't realize the severity of the problem, or didn't assign the necessary operating-system-staff resources to develop and distribute an official patch.

Months passed. The Motorola guys pestered their Xerox field-support rep, to no avail. Finally they decided to take Direct Action, to demonstrate to Xerox management just how easily the system could be cracked, and just how thoroughly the system security systems could be subverted.

They dug around in the operating-system listings, and devised a thoroughly devilish set of patches. These patches were then incorporated into a pair of programs called Robin Hood and Friar Tuck. Robin Hood and Friar Tuck were designed to run as 'ghost jobs' (daemons, in Unix terminology); they would use the existing loophole to subvert system security, install the necessary patches, and then keep an eye on one another's statuses in order to keep the system operator (in effect, the superuser) from aborting them.

So...one day, the system operator on the main CP-V software development system in El Segundo was surprised by a number of unusual phenomena. These included the following:

• Tape drives would rewind and dismount their tapes in the middle of a job.
• Disk drives would seek back and forth so rapidly that they'd attempt to walk across the floor.
• The card-punch output device would occasionally start up of itself and punch a (every hole punched). These would usually jam in the punch.
• The console would print snide and insulting messages from Robin Hood to Friar Tuck, or vice versa.
• The Xerox card reader had two output stackers; it could be instructed to stack into A, stack into B, or stack into A unless a card was unreadable, in which case the bad card was placed into stacker B. One of the patches installed by the ghosts added some code to the card-reader driver... after reading a card, it would flip over to the opposite stacker. As a result, card decks would divide themselves in half when they were read, leaving the operator to recollate them manually.

There were some other effects produced, as well.

Naturally, the operator called in the operating-system developers. They found the bandit ghost jobs running, and X'ed them... and were once again surprised. When Robin Hood was X'ed, the following sequence of events took place:

!X id1
id1: Friar Tuck... I am under attack!  Pray save me!
id1: Off (aborted)
id2: Fear not, friend Robin!  I shall rout the Sheriff of
     Nottingham's men!
id1: Thank you, my good fellow!

Each ghost-job would detect the fact that the other had been killed, and would start a new copy of the recently-slain program within a few milliseconds. The only way to kill both ghosts was to kill them simultaneously (very difficult) or to deliberately crash the system.

Finally, the system programmers did the latter... only to find that the bandits appeared once again when the system rebooted! It turned out that these two programs had patched the boot-time image (the /vmunix file, in Unix terms) and had added themselves to the list of programs that were to be started at boot time...

The Robin Hood and Friar Tuck ghosts were finally eradicated when the system staff rebooted the system from a clean boot-tape and reinstalled the monitor. Not long thereafter, Xerox released a patch for this problem.

It is alleged that Xerox filed a complaint with Motorola's management about the merry-prankster actions of the two employees in question. It is not recorded that any serious disciplinary action was taken against either of them.

=====

So, the upshot is to have multiple jobs (as many as you like), monitoring each other and restarting where necessary. You also need to protect against variants of the kill statement that can kill a whole slew of processes in one hit.

Answer 5

You could an entry to your crontab that has a chance to kill firefox every ten minutes. No process to kill to prevent it happening.

Something like:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w strict

my $random_number = rand()*10;

if (rand()*10 ==1) { kill firefox-bin }

and in crontab: */10 * * * * * /home//maybe_kill_firefox.pl