From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761382AbXGZDVu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756867AbXGZDVn (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:43 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:56258 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756226AbXGZDVm (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:21:42 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=opDije1rbkPrDXQDStQOmVsS6TlHnme8173Kp6BHW9z3jYg0xSrevmZkqUy+bTKB2 xKOvH3tOSzvmunu1hqj8g== Message-ID: <4517d1380707252021j1c7af370wcd23edebd3085c51@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:21:28 -0700 From: "Masoud Sharbiani" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: i386-show-unhandled-signals-v3 Cc: "Andi Kleen" , "Kirill Korotaev" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070725165805.1bcd5a02.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070718154759.GA26425@google.com> <46A76210.5020903@openvz.org> <200707251657.44217.ak@suse.de> <20070725140455.cbbc0dde.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4517d1380707251407v178068baxcc76a86f8337cc27@mail.gmail.com> <20070725162528.7d485ff8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070725234005.GA11292@google.com> <20070725165805.1bcd5a02.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:06 -0700 > masouds@google.com (Masoud Asgharifard Sharbiani) wrote: > > > > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk > > > we fix it, end of story. I don't know why this even slightly > > > controversial. > > > > > > > Fair enough. Here it is: > > My favourite words. > > > --------------- > > Hello, > > This patch makes the i386 behave the same way that x86_64 does when a > > segfault happens. A line gets printed to the kernel log so that tools > > that need to check for failures can behave more uniformly between > > different kernels. Like x86_64, it can be disabled by setting > > debug.show_unhandled_signals sysctl variable to 0 (or by doing > > echo 0 > /proc/sys/debug/show_unhandled_signals) > > Do we really need the ratelimiting? If the admin turns this on then he's > presumably prepared for the consequences. > > I guess "yes", as people (even distros) are likely to turn this on and > forget about it. > > The patch is larger than I expected, ho hum. > So, we happy? What else I can chop from this patch to make it more acceptable for the people involved? Please be advised that with this patch, the old exception_trace that was enabled becomes disabled by default; x86_64 had that enabled, and i386 didn't have anything... cheers, Masoud