Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:13:53 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: drussell@saturn-tech.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SIGTERMs killing X Message-ID: <14962.859403633@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:27:01 MST." <199703261827.LAA28346@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmmm... perhaps. So are you going to change the comment so that > it implies what you said instead of implying what I said? Well, it's not even my comment, so I'm not apt to fool with it. :) FWIW, I didn't read it that way - I see it as just one of the ways in which execve() can fail and someone's attempt to pass back a little extra info about it by [ab]using the signal flags. It would be interesting to check whether any applications are actually using this to provide extra information about a failure. I know that it's not documented in the man page. :-) > PS: I'd be interested to see *anywhere* else in the kernel where the > SIGABRT signal is sent. I've grepped the sources, and the only place There aren't any other places, from what I can tell. Again, the problem you were responding to was almost certainly an internal application abort() and the VM overcommit issue you raised would have raised a KILL and logged it on the system console if that had been the culprit here. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14962.859403633>