Re: [PATCH] A terminating signal has to complete a bash process

From	Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
Newsgroups	gnu.bash.bug
Subject	Re: [PATCH] A terminating signal has to complete a bash process
Date	2018-05-03 16:29 -0400
Message-ID	<mailman.13378.1525379375.27995.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References	<20180430220520.32312-1-avagin@openvz.org> <e131b7b7-bd73-85b0-c5e4-88b66cab861a@case.edu> <20180501164422.GA7043@outlook.office365.com> <759a8efe-1c0a-2966-a2ae-59fc734fdad3@case.edu> <20180501235553.GA4218@outlook.office365.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/1/18 7:55 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote:

>> If it's not obvious, I'm trying to determine whether making this change
>> will add any more value than simply exiting (perhaps with a particular
>> exit status).
> 
> It will add more value. Without this changes, we will not know whether a
> bach process crashed or exited. If it will not generate a core dump after
> a crash, the tools like abrtd, coredumpd, etc will not detect this crash
> and will not report about this abnormal behaviour.

OK, we'll try it. I'll be interested to see if any core dumps created by
causing a SIGSEGV will overwrite any stack information from the `real'
fatal signal.

Thanks for the patch.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] A terminating signal has to complete a bash process Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2018-05-03 16:29 -0400

csiph-web