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

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



On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:35:24PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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
> used.
> 
> 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.

Completely agree.  But to clarify, my earlier objection was that we'll
SIGKILL anything sharing the same kernel MM; including non-CLONE_THREAD
tasks... that's a little bit surprising of a behavior.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer





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