Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:04:32 -0500 From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> To: "David E. Cross" <dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu> Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER Message-ID: <19980428130432.34057@mcs.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980428121410.15319C-100000@phoenix.its.rpi.edu>; from David E. Cross on Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 12:17:40PM -0400 References: <19980428073841.05698@mcs.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980428121410.15319C-100000@phoenix.its.rpi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Good point, except that if you ignore it, you're saying that its acceptable to kill you if the kernel MUST do so. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 12:17:40PM -0400, David E. Cross wrote: > On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > Well, now wait a minute.. > > > > SIGDANGER is useful if properly trapped and handled. I'd like to see if > > supported with the default to be "ignore" (ie: you have to ASK for it to > > be delivered and processed). > May I ask what good is it if it is ignored by default???? > > Default should be as it is on AIX, to terminate the process. In general > you care more about system processes than user procs, so I would "make > world" on my system if this got added, with all the system procs having a > one line addition in main() to ignore the signal, and I would be ready to > go. > > > -- > David Cross > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980428130432.34057>