Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, vans@static.bigfoot.com Subject: Re: Sendmail dying Message-ID: <199807211807.LAA26304@pau-amma.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980721123917.5516B-100000@static.bigfoot.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:45:30 -0400 (EDT) >From: Trans Vans <vans@static.bigfoot.com> >/kernel: pid 5312 (sendmail), uid 0: exited on signal 11 >sendmail[5311]:NOQUEUE :SYSERR(root): SMTP-MAIL: died on signal 11 > Ok so sendmail has died for me. I'm not too heartbroken because a >kill -HUP fixed it. I find that somewhat confusing. In the environments I've previously been exp[osed to, once a process had terminated (as a result of receipt of a signal, or any other reason), sending a signal to the process would merely result in the "kill" program whining about "no such process". >Now my question is this. Does anyone know why sendmail >decided to kick the bucket ? (I understand that this is a pretty general >question. My laptop only has 8MB of ram so this could be one possible >cause). My other question is what on earth is signal 11 ? Is that like a >SIG SEGV ? pau-amma[5]% grep SEGV /usr/include/sys/signal.h #define SIGSEGV 11 /* segmentation violation */ Yup. Dunno why sendmail would do that to/for you, but my understanding is that SIGSEGV is issued when the program tried to access storage that it didn't "own" -- which is, from my perspective, a programming error. (In the IBM mainframe world, a similar situation was called "S0C4," if I recall correctly, and I told the authors of those programs the same thing.) david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807211807.LAA26304>