On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 12:25:48AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 06/03/2015 11:49 PM, Vadim Kochan wrote: > ... > >I was faced with case when netsniff-ng silently was killed by SIGSEGV > >but w/o message, I investigated that it was caused by 'sudo' which seems > >for me somehow aborts this signal, but registering the SIGSEGV handler > >(which printed the expected "Segmentation fault" message) in netsniff-ng > >"fixed" it. > > > >So the question is: should netsniff-ng handle SIGSEGV signal in that > >case, prints message and die or this is not secured behaviour to let > >know about "Segmentation fault" for the user who might have some > >limitations by sudo ? > > > >Actually may be this is only my special case when I'd like to see > >"Segmentation fault" message to identify the problem in the code when > >using sudo. > > For SIGSEGV, we should have the default handler trigger. Looks like a > bug when registering signal handlers for other signals (and thus ignoring > it). So an own handler printing "Segmentation fault" would not be correct, > would be better to fix the registration. > > Thanks, > Daniel
Actually I tried that way (if I am get your think) - I removed all the signal stuffs in netsniff-ng.c & still got the silence. Regards, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "netsniff-ng" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
