Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:21:28 -0700 | From | "Masoud Sharbiani" <> | Subject | Re: i386-show-unhandled-signals-v3 |
| |
On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:06 -0700 > masouds@google.com (Masoud Asgharifard Sharbiani) wrote: > > > > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk > > > we fix it, end of story. I don't know why this even slightly > > > controversial. > > > > > > > Fair enough. Here it is: > > My favourite words. > > > --------------- > > Hello, > > This patch makes the i386 behave the same way that x86_64 does when a > > segfault happens. A line gets printed to the kernel log so that tools > > that need to check for failures can behave more uniformly between > > different kernels. Like x86_64, it can be disabled by setting > > debug.show_unhandled_signals sysctl variable to 0 (or by doing > > echo 0 > /proc/sys/debug/show_unhandled_signals) > > Do we really need the ratelimiting? If the admin turns this on then he's > presumably prepared for the consequences. > > I guess "yes", as people (even distros) are likely to turn this on and > forget about it. > > The patch is larger than I expected, ho hum. >
So, we happy? What else I can chop from this patch to make it more acceptable for the people involved? Please be advised that with this patch, the old exception_trace that was enabled becomes disabled by default; x86_64 had that enabled, and i386 didn't have anything... cheers, Masoud - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |