[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <465219FA.7080305@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 00:15:55 +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...
>
> Why not?
Maybe sometimes it's useful, maybe not, but I suppose that usually only the
controlling process should care about the critical signals received by the
controlled process. I simply don't think it should be a system issue. For
example I wouldn't like to have a lot of messages in the kernel logs just
because I'm debugging some segfaulting programs with gdb.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists