[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [19]   [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 Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:54:17 +0300, Denis Vlasenko said:

    > > char *j=NULL;
    > > signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL);
    > > *j++;

    > I disagree. _exit(2) is the most sensible way to terminate.

    Not if you want it *dead*, *now*, with a core dump, and with minimal disruption
    of program state. Sometimes (especially when trying to shoot a race condition)
    you just can't run the program under gdb - and if it calls _exit() there's not much
    wreckage left for gdb to look at....

    > Logginh kernel-induced SEGVs and ILLs are definitely a help when you hunt
    > daemons mysteriously crashing. This outweighs DoS hazard.

    Well, I can *see* the fact it exited with a signal in 'lastcomm' already. If that's all
    the info you're providing, it's of no help.

    Now, if you figure out how to read the module's -g data and give me a line number
    it died at:

    kprint(DEBUG "Process %d (%s) died on signal %d at line %d of function %s", ....

    but that would involve a lot of file I/O from kernelspace, soo.....
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.026 / U:38.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site