Re: i386-show-unhandled-signals-v3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:06 -0700
[email protected] (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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux