Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-19 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Nov 19 2006 07:13, Oleg Verych wrote: >On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 12:24:14AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Nov 18 2006 21:51, Oleg Verych wrote: >> >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:30:02PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> >> >Then, who you think prints that "Killed" or "Segmentation fault" >> >> >m

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Oleg Verych
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 12:24:14AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Nov 18 2006 21:51, Oleg Verych wrote: > >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:30:02PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> >Then, who you think prints that "Killed" or "Segmentation fault" > >> >messages in *stderr*? > >> >[Hint: libc's def

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Nov 18 2006 21:51, Oleg Verych wrote: >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:30:02PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> >Then, who you think prints that "Killed" or "Segmentation fault" >> >messages in *stderr*? >> >[Hint: libc's default signal handler (man 2 signal).] >> >> Please enlighten us on how you p

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Oleg Verych
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:30:02PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Nov 18 2006 02:38, Oleg Verych wrote: > >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:04:13AM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > >> > > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used > >> > > > system > >> > > > of mine with

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Jan Engelhardt
>> 4. If this is about detecting the loss of specific processes >>(network services say), then the problem can be solved in >>user-space by using a separate monitor process, or by >>controlling the processes via ptrace. > >No not only for specific processes. It helps you detect problem

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Nov 18 2006 02:38, Oleg Verych wrote: >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:04:13AM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: >> > > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system >> > > > of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.2 >> > > > which emits logging

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Oleg Verych
Nice to meet you, Miquel! On 2006-11-18, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:04:13AM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: >>> > > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Folkert van Heusden
> 4. If this is about detecting the loss of specific processes >(network services say), then the problem can be solved in >user-space by using a separate monitor process, or by >controlling the processes via ptrace. No not only for specific processes. It helps you detect problems with

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Mikael Pettersson
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:09:46 +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: >I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system >of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.2 >which emits logging when a process emits a fatal signal. > >Signed-off-by: Folkert van Heusd

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-18 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:04:13AM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: >> > > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system >> > > > of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-17 Thread Oleg Verych
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:04:13AM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > > > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system > > > > of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.2 > > > > which emits logging when a process emits a fatal signal. > > > Wh

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-17 Thread Folkert van Heusden
> > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system > > > of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.2 > > > which emits logging when a process emits a fatal signal. > > Why not to patch default signal handlers in glibc, to have not only > > stderr,

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-17 Thread Folkert van Heusden
Hi, > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system > > of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.2 > > which emits logging when a process emits a fatal signal. > Why not to patch default signal handlers in glibc, to have not only > stderr, but

Re: [PATCH] emit logging when a process receives a fatal signal

2006-11-17 Thread Oleg Verych
On 2006-11-18, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > Hi, > > I found that sometimes processes disappear on some heavily used system > of mine without any logging. So I've written a patch against 2.6.18.2 > which emits logging when a process emits a fatal signal. Why not to patch default signal handlers in