[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);
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:0.112 / U:22.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site