[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: Dumb question: Why are exceptions such as SIGSEGV not logged
    Thank you all for your valuable input,

    I was chasing some data corruption testing swsusp.

    This simple patch met my immediate needs (against 2.4.22-rc1)

    diff -uN kernel/signal.c.orig kernel/signal.c
    --- kernel/signal.c.orig 2003-08-16 22:08:57.000000000 +0800
    +++ kernel/signal.c 2003-08-17 06:21:49.000000000 +0800
    @@ -536,6 +536,11 @@
    int ret;

    + if (sig == 11 || sig == 13)
    + printk("Signal: %d\n",sig);
    #if DEBUG_SIG
    printk("SIG queue (%s:%d): %d ", t->comm, t->pid, sig);

    > ----------------
    > 5. Use step 4 and if the problem persists and is not secondary to a
    > rogue program/daemon get a 3.5 ft (approx. 1 meter) length of sucker rod*
    > and have a chat with the user in question.

    As to security concerns, I feel this being the appropriate approach ;)


    Powered by linux-2.6. Compiled with gcc-2.95-3 - mature and rock solid

    2.4/2.6 kernel testing: ACPI PCI interrupt routing, PCI IRQ sharing, swsusp
    2.6 kernel testing: PCMCIA yenta_socket, Suspend to RAM with ACPI S1-S3

    More info on swsusp:

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.020 / U:1.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site