linux-kernel - Re: signals logged / [RFC] log out-of-virtual-memory events

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4651A564.9090509@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 15:58:25 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Andrea Righi <righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: signals logged / [RFC] log out-of-virtual-memory events

Folkert van Heusden wrote:
>>> What about the following enhancement: I check with sig_fatal if it would
>>> kill the process and only then emit a message. So when an application
>>> takes care itself of handling it nothing is printed.
>>> +	/* emit some logging for unhandled signals
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (sig_fatal(t, sig))
>> Not unhandled_signal()?
> 
> Can we already use that one in send_signal? As the signal needs to be
> send first I think before we know if it was handled or not? sig_fatal
> checks if the handler is set to default - which is it is not taken care
> of.

What about ptrace()'d processes? I don't think we should log signals for them...

-Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/