[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.019 / U:23.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site