I was thinking the same thing. Executing code after a SEGV (or other coredump situation) seems risky. -- justinOn Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:The attached patch changes sig_coredump to call a hook. In the fullness of time, the ap_exception_info_t provided to the hook would contain any and all relevant information available to a signal/exception handler (e.g., siginfo_t on many Unix variants). ... Thoughts/concerns?Why do I fear this would be a security problem waiting to happen? :-/
--On Wednesday, February 19, 2003 2:33 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Cliff Woolley
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Jim Jagielski
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_coredump Bill Stoddard
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_cored... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from sig_... Bill Stoddard
- Re: [PATCH] call hook from ... Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: [PATCH] call hook f... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: [PATCH] call hook f... Jeff Trawick