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

[Andrea Righi <righiandr@users.sourceforge.net>]

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