[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
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:50:49PM -0400, Hank Leininger wrote:
> > ..So not *all* such cases are cause for alarm. However, if you run one of
> > the patches enabling logging of this, you quickly learn what's normal for
> > the apps you run, and can teach your log-auditing tools and/or your brain
> > to ignore them.
> And why not just catch the ones sent from the kernel? That's the one that
> is killing the program because it crashed,

Well, in my case at least, because if a network-listening daemon fell
over with sigsegv, sigill, etc I most definitely wanted to know about
it. But, you certainly could make a patch to do only that; it'd be
lower impact, less contraversial but probably still not accepted into
mainline (just a guess).

> and that's the one the origional poster wants logged...

Hm, I see Thar Filipau bringing that up specifically, and it does seem
like something that ought to generate some logs. (But I thought they
should already generate oops's? Apparently not.) The OP seemed to be
concerned with any SIGSEGV and SIGILL signals, not just in-kernel ones?

Hank Leininger <>
E407 AEF4 761E D39C D401 D4F4 22F8 EF11 861A A6F1


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:0.120 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site