From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 28 11:04:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19498 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:04:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19476; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from karl@Mars.mcs.net) Received: from Mars.mcs.net (karl@Mars.mcs.net [192.160.127.85]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA02636; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:04:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from karl@localhost) by Mars.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id NAA07177; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:04:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <19980428130432.34057@mcs.net> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:04:32 -0500 From: Karl Denninger To: "David E. Cross" Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, Robert Withrow , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER References: <19980428073841.05698@mcs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84 In-Reply-To: ; from David E. Cross on Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 12:17:40PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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