On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:11:41 -0500 Sri Ram Vemulpali <sri.ram.gmu06@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for introducing me to 'phrack' magazine. I read the article. > It seems its kind of hack, which might leave process in unexpected > state. I am more of looking at which thread in the task generated the > SIGSEGV. This article is very helpful, but some more information the > direction would do for me. Thanks in advance If you don't kill the whole process on SIGSEGV, you don't have any warranty that you won't encounter further unexpected behavior anyway in the general case -- and achieving hypothetical requirements to partly ignore SIGSEGV in a way that would still allow to have fully defined behavior after the event would probably be far more harder to achieve than doing a clean design. And just to be extra clear: stopping thread that generated the SIGSEGV is not going to get you a completely sane state. Just use multiple processes or be prepared to introduce even more problems than those supposed to be fixed by what you are trying to do (which won't even fix them properly anyway...) -- Guillaume Knispel _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
