[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:0.092 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site