On Fr, 06.01.23 11:06, Michael Catanzaro (mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Maybe instead of SIGKILL, we should send SIGQUIT instead. That way abrt > should complain next time you boot and users will have an opportunity to > report bugs to the package maintainer, instead of the problem being forever > ignored. Killing things silently makes it real hard to report bugs. And as a > bonus, the core dump should actually show what the process was doing at the > time it got killed. The more I think about it, the better this sounds. > Currently this can be configured using FinalKillSignal=SIGQUIT, so we'd just > need to figure out the right place to put that. > > systemd already has a configuration option for this so we'd just have to > turn it on. Don't use FinalKillSignal=SIGQUIT. Use TimeoutStopFailureMode=abort instead. (which covers more ground, and sends SIGABRT rather than SIGQUIT on failure, which has the same effect: coredumping). That said: dumping core is potentially extremely expensive (web browsers have gigabytes of virtual memory that we might end up processing and compressing). Quite often the stuff that is slow when exiting is also the stuff that is expensive to dump. Hence, I am not sure you'll gain that much via this mechanism: you cut a long operation short and then execute long operation as result. You might end delaying things more than you hope shortening them. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
