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

Re: [patch] thread-aware coredumps, 2.5.43-C3

Hash: SHA1

Mark Gross wrote:

> Also, there is was some talk about the SIGKILL's getting sent to the
> thread
> group as being a possible issue.  I'm not expert enough in POSIX to
> say one
> way or the other.  Whether the pthreads helper thread or the kernel
> sends the
> SIGKILL's shouldn't make any difference.  I was hoping to see that
> question
> closed out as well.

POSIX obviously doesn't say anything about core dumps so it cannot be
used in the argumentation.  If a thread gets a fatal signal POSIX says
the process is terminated.  Who this happens in unspecified.  it is only
important that the parent gets the right reason communicated if wait is

Not looking at standard, I agree that having the signo == 0 for all but
the thread which got the fatal signal is what I would like to see.  But
I wouldn't make this an absolute requirement.  Especially not with the
current core dump implementation which isn't perfect.  If it's easy to
change I'd like to see zero in the field.

- -- 
- --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


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