Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:44:10 -0700 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: Dumb question: Why are exceptions such as SIGSEGV not logged |
| |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 03:39:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > And why not just catch the ones sent from the kernel? That's the one that > > is killing the program because it crashed, and that's the one the > > origional > > poster wants logged... > > Because sometimes a program wants to terminate. And it is perfectly legal > for a programmer who needs to terminate his program as quickly as possible > to do this: > > char *j=NULL; > signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL); > *j++; > > This is a perfectly sensible thing for a program to do with well-defined > semantics. If a program wants to create a child every minute like this and > kill it, that's perfectly fine. We should be able to do that in the default > configuration without a sysadmin complaining that we're DoSing his syslogs.
Are you saying that a signal requested from userspace uses the same code path as the signal sent when a process has overstepped its bounds?
Surely some flag can be set so that we know the kernel is killing it because it did something illegal... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |