Exit shell with shortcut (not typing exit) that closes session properly












11















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







share|improve this question


















  • 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
    2 days ago
















11















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







share|improve this question


















  • 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
    2 days ago














11












11








11








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







share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









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 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
    2 days ago














  • 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
    2 days ago








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
2 days ago





~. 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
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















27














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

    – JdeBP
    2 days ago











  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago











  • @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

    – Peschke
    2 days ago






  • 2





    Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

    – JdeBP
    yesterday



















4














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.






share|improve this answer








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.




















    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    27














    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.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 2





      The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

      – JdeBP
      2 days ago











    • 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
      2 days ago








    • 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
      2 days ago











    • @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

      – Peschke
      2 days ago






    • 2





      Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

      – JdeBP
      yesterday
















    27














    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.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 2





      The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

      – JdeBP
      2 days ago











    • 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
      2 days ago








    • 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
      2 days ago











    • @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

      – Peschke
      2 days ago






    • 2





      Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

      – JdeBP
      yesterday














    27












    27








    27







    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.






    share|improve this answer















    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago









    DopeGhoti

    46.4k56190




    46.4k56190










    answered 2 days ago









    0xSheepdog0xSheepdog

    1,5321924




    1,5321924








    • 2





      The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

      – JdeBP
      2 days ago











    • 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
      2 days ago








    • 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
      2 days ago











    • @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

      – Peschke
      2 days ago






    • 2





      Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

      – JdeBP
      yesterday














    • 2





      The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

      – JdeBP
      2 days ago











    • 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
      2 days ago








    • 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
      2 days ago











    • @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

      – Peschke
      2 days ago






    • 2





      Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

      – JdeBP
      yesterday








    2




    2





    The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

    – JdeBP
    2 days ago





    The next stop is unix.stackexchange.com/a/182071/5132 , and the stop after that is the further reading there. (-:

    – JdeBP
    2 days ago













    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
    2 days ago







    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
    2 days ago






    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
    2 days ago





    @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
    2 days ago













    @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

    – Peschke
    2 days ago





    @JohnKugelman I tested and confirmed the behavior at the time of my comment with bash on RHEL 7.5.

    – Peschke
    2 days ago




    2




    2





    Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

    – JdeBP
    yesterday





    Peschke is using the vi terminal input bindings.

    – JdeBP
    yesterday













    4














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    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.

























      4














      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.






      share|improve this answer








      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.























        4












        4








        4







        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.






        share|improve this answer








        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.







        share|improve this answer








        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.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        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 2 days ago









        LL3LL3

        513




        513




        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.






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Image
            Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
            Read more

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Image
            Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
            Read more

            Musa

            Image
            Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
            Read more