Bash: infinite sleep (infinite blocking)

Question

I use startx to start X which will evaluate my .xinitrc. In my .xinitrc I start my window manager using /usr/bin/mywm. Now, if I kill my WM (in order to f.e. test some other WM), X will terminate too because the .xinitrc script reached EOF. So I added this at the end of my .xinitrc:

while true; do sleep 10000; done

This way X won't terminate if I kill my WM. Now my question: how can I do an infinite sleep instead of looping sleep? Is there a command which will kinda like freeze the script?

Solution 1

sleep infinity does exactly what it suggests and works without cat abuse.

Solution 2

tail does not block

As always: For everything there is an answer which is short, easy to understand, easy to follow and completely wrong. Here tail -f /dev/null falls into this category ;)

If you look at it with strace tail -f /dev/null you will notice, that this solution is far from blocking! It's probably even worse than the sleep solution in the question, as it uses (under Linux) precious resources like the inotify system. Also other processes which write to /dev/null make tail loop. (On my Ubuntu64 16.10 this adds several 10 syscalls per second on an already busy system.)

The question was for a blocking command

Unfortunately, there is no such thing ..

Read: I do not know any way to archive this with the shell directly.

Everything (even sleep infinity) can be interrupted by some signal. So if you want to be really sure it does not exceptionally return, it must run in a loop, like you already did for your sleep. Please note, that (on Linux) /bin/sleep apparently is capped at 24 days (have a look at strace sleep infinity), hence the best you can do probably is:

while :; do sleep 2073600; done

(Note that I believe sleep loops internally for higher values than 24 days, but this means: It is not blocking, it is very slowly looping. So why not move this loop to the outside?)

.. but you can come quite near with an unnamed fifo

You can create something which really blocks as long as there are no signals send to the process. Following uses bash 4, 2 PIDs and 1 fifo:

bash -c 'coproc { exec >&-; read; }; eval exec "${COPROC[0]}<&-"; wait'

You can check that this really blocks with strace if you like:

strace -ff bash -c '..see above..'

How this was constructed

read blocks if there is no input data (see some other answers). However, the tty (aka. stdin) usually is not a good source, as it is closed when the user logs out. Also it might steal some input from the tty. Not nice.

To make read block, we need to wait for something like a fifo which will never return anything. In bash 4 there is a command which can exactly provide us with such a fifo: coproc. If we also wait the blocking read (which is our coproc), we are done. Sadly this needs to keep open two PIDs and a fifo.

Variant with a named fifo

If you do not bother using a named fifo, you can do this as follows:

mkfifo "$HOME/.pause.fifo" 2>/dev/null; read <"$HOME/.pause.fifo"

Not using a loop on the read is a bit sloppy, but you can reuse this fifo as often as you like and make the reads terminat using touch "$HOME/.pause.fifo" (if there are more than a single read waiting, all are terminated at once).

Or use the Linux pause() syscall

For the infinite blocking there is a Linux kernel call, called pause(), which does what we want: Wait forever (until a signal arrives). However there is no userspace program for this (yet).

C

Create such a program is easy. Here is a snippet to create a very small Linux program called pause which pauses indefinitely (needs diet, gcc etc.):

printf '#include <unistd.h>\nint main(){for(;;)pause();}' > pause.c;
diet -Os cc pause.c -o pause;
strip -s pause;
ls -al pause

python

If you do not want to compile something yourself, but you have python installed, you can use this under Linux:

python -c 'while 1: import ctypes; ctypes.CDLL(None).pause()'

(Note: Use exec python -c ... to replace the current shell, this frees one PID. The solution can be improved with some IO redirection as well, freeing unused FDs. This is up to you.)

How this works (I think): ctypes.CDLL(None) loads the standard C library and runs the pause() function in it within some additional loop. Less efficient than the C version, but works.

My recommendation for you:

Stay at the looping sleep. It's easy to understand, very portable, and blocks most of the time.

Solution 3

Maybe this seems ugly, but why not just run cat and let it wait for input forever?

Solution 4

TL;DR: sleep infinity actually sleeps the maximum time allowed, which is finite.

Wondering why this is not documented anywhere, I bothered to read the sources from GNU coreutils and I found it executes roughly what follows:

1. Use strtod from C stdlib on the first argument to convert 'infinity' to a double precision value. So, assuming IEEE 754 double precision the 64-bit positive infinity value is stored in the seconds variable.
2. Invoke xnanosleep(seconds) (found in gnulib), this in turn invokes dtotimespec(seconds) (also in gnulib) to convert from double to struct timespec.
3. struct timespec is just a pair of numbers: integer part (in seconds) and fractional part (in nanoseconds). Naïvely converting positive infinity to integer would result in undefined behaviour (see §6.3.1.4 from C standard), so instead it truncates to TYPE_MAXIMUM(time_t).
4. The actual value of TYPE_MAXIMUM(time_t) is not set in the standard (even sizeof(time_t) isn't); so, for the sake of example let's pick x86-64 from a recent Linux kernel.

This is TIME_T_MAX in the Linux kernel, which is defined (time.h) as:

(time_t)((1UL << ((sizeof(time_t) << 3) - 1)) - 1)

Note that time_t is __kernel_time_t and time_t is long; the LP64 data model is used, so sizeof(long) is 8 (64 bits).

Which results in: TIME_T_MAX = 9223372036854775807.

That is: sleep infinite results in an actual sleep time of 9223372036854775807 seconds (10^11 years). And for 32-bit linux systems (sizeof(long) is 4 (32 bits)): 2147483647 seconds (68 years; see also year 2038 problem).

---

Edit: apparently the nanoseconds function called is not directly the syscall, but an OS-dependent wrapper (also defined in gnulib).

There's an extra step as a result: for some systems where HAVE_BUG_BIG_NANOSLEEP is true the sleep is truncated to 24 days and then called in a loop. This is the case for some (or all?) Linux distros. Note that this wrapper may be not used if a configure-time test succeeds (source).

In particular, that would be 24 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 2073600 seconds (plus 999999999 nanoseconds); but this is called in a loop in order to respect the specified total sleep time. Therefore the previous conclusions remain valid.

---

In conclusion, the resulting sleep time is not infinite but high enough for all practical purposes, even if the resulting actual time lapse is not portable; that depends on the OS and architecture.

To answer the original question, this is obviously good enough but if for some reason (a very resource-constrained system) you really want to avoid an useless extra countdown timer, I guess the most correct alternative is to use the cat method described in other answers.

Edit: recent GNU coreutils versions will try to use the pause syscall (if available) instead of looping. The previous argument is no longer valid when targeting these newer versions in Linux (and possibly BSD).

---

Portability

This is an important valid concern:

• sleep infinity is a GNU coreutils extension not contemplated in POSIX. GNU's implementation also supports a "fancy" syntax for time durations, like sleep 1h 5.2s while POSIX only allows a positive integer (e.g. sleep 0.5 is not allowed).
• Some compatible implementations: GNU coreutils, FreeBSD (at least from version 8.2?), Busybox (requires to be compiled with options FANCY_SLEEP and FLOAT_DURATION).
• The strtod behaviour is C and POSIX compatible (i.e. strtod("infinity", 0) is always valid in C99-conformant implementations, see §7.20.1.3).

---

Solution 5

sleep infinity looks most elegant, but sometimes it doesn't work for some reason. In that case, you can try other blocking commands such as cat, read, tail -f /dev/null, grep a etc.

View more solutions

Comments

[jehon]

Interesting... "sleep infinity" to keep X awake :-)

[watain]

If I use --replace I always get a warning like another window manager is already running. That doesn't make much sense to me tho.

[Matt Joiner]

This doesn't work if you don't have a hanging pipe from which to read. Please advise.

[Michał Trybus]

@Matt, maybe make a pipe and cat it? mkfifo pipe && cat pipe

[not-a-user]

Cool. Unfortunately my busybox does not understand.

[not-a-user]

Signals are asynchronous. So the following can happen: a) shell calls kill b) kill tells kernel that shell shall receive signal STOP c) kill terminates and returns to shell d) shell continues (maybe terminates because script ends) e) kernel finally finds the time to deliver signal STOP to shell

[michuelnik]

@temple Great insight, didn't think about the asynchronous nature of signals. Thanks!

[Ivan X]

BSD (or at least OS X) doesn't understand sleep infinity either, though it was a cool thing to learn about for Linux. However, while true; do sleep 86400; done ought to be an adequate substitute.

[schmunk]

tail -f /dev/null was also a working solution for me on a SaaS platform

[Sudo Bash]

tail -f /dev/null also has the advantage of not consuming stdin. I have used it for that reason.

[Tino]

This eats stdin if this still happens to be connected to the tty. If you run it with < /dev/null it busy-loops. It might be of some use in certain situations, so I do not downvote.

[Mohammed Noureldin]

This is a very bad idea, it will just consume alllot of cpu.

[Tino]

@Andrew Normally you do not need the trap (which modifies the behavior of the shell to signals) nor the background (which allows the shell to intercept signals from the terminal, like Strg+C). So sleep infinity is enough (behaves like exec sleep infinity if it is the last statement. to see the difference use strace -ffDI4 bash -c 'YOURCODEHERE'). The looping sleep is better, because sleep can return in certain circumstances. For example you do not want X11 to shut down suddenly on a killall sleep, just because .xstartup ends in sleep infinity instead of a sleep loop.

[Patrick]

May be a little obscure, but s6-pause is a userland command to run pause(), optionally ignoring various signals.

[jp48]

Regarding this, I made some research I documented in a separate answer. To summarize: infinity is converted in C from "string" to a double. Then that double is truncated to the maximum values allowed timespec, which means a very large amount of seconds (architecture-dependant) but, in theory, finite.

[jp48]

What @twalberg says, but additionally you can immediately reassign to 3 and unlink it, as shown here: superuser.com/a/633185/762481

[nh2]

@Tino /bin/sleep is not capped at 24 days as you say. It would be nice if you could update that. On Linux right now, this code is active. It caps individual nanosleep() syscalls to 24 days, but calls them in a loop. So sleep infinity should not exit after 24 days. The double positive infinity gets converted to a struct timespec. Looking at rpl_nanosleep in GDB, infinity gets converted to { tv_sec = 9223372036854775807, tv_nsec = 999999999 } on Ubuntu 16.04.

[Tino]

@nh2 It was already mentioned in the text that sleep probably loops instead of being fully blocking. I edited it now slightly to hopefully make this fact a bit more clear. Please note this "probably", because from strace alone I cannot prove the fact that there is really some looping code compiled in sleep, and I do not want to wait 24 days just to test this (or decompile /bin/sleep). It is always better to program defensively, if there is no hard mathematical proof, that something really is, as it seems to be. Also never trust anything: killall -9 sleep

[Shadow]

Those considering this option should read this answer to learn about the ramifications of this option.

[tgoodhart]

The pause() option can be done pretty easily with perl: perl -MPOSIX -e 'pause()'

[Vladimir Panteleev]

sleep isn't really capped to 24 days. It breaks the interval into 24-day segments to work around bugs in some operating systems: git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/lib/…

[Vladimir Panteleev]

In the next coreutils, sleep infinity will now actually sleep forever without looping: lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-02/msg00081.html

[Vladimir Panteleev]

In the next coreutils, sleep infinity will now actually sleep forever without looping: lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-02/msg00081.html

[ahoffer]

I googled "cat abuse". Not sure what I was expecting to find. How about: "No cats were harmed in the execution of this script"

[Tino]

@VladimirPanteleev nice! sleep inf then will call pause() which gives us all we want. Afterwards my answer can be retired ;)

[Glenn]

FWIW, macOS Big Sur now understands "sleep infinity" though Mojave did not. (I skipped Catalina.)

[Miao1007]

It will lead to busy waiting(100% CPU) on MacOS.

[qoomon]

@Miao1007 it only happens with zsh with sh this does not happen. I don't have any clue why this happens in zsh.

[qoomon]

@Miao1007 I got it, its because wait in zsh will resume the given process.

[qoomon]

@Miao1007 I fixed my command by removing $! form wait command. Now its working in zsh as well.

[kojiro]

/bin/sleep infinity does not work on the Big Sur I'm using. However, gsleep infinity does.

[sobi3ch]

If your OS doesn't support sleep infinity then I suggest running sleep 365d assuming your box is restarted at least once a year.

[TJ Zimmerman]

This answer reminds me why I love Stack Overflow lol

[Vladimir Panteleev]

@jp48 sleep infinity will now actually sleep forever with the latest GNU coreutils.