Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 00:02 +0100, Victor Stinner a écrit : > Another possible approach is to restore the previous handler in the > fault handler, and don't call abort(). The fault should occur again, and > so the previous signal handler will be called.
I implemented this simple approach in the version 10 of my patch: the previous signal handler is called. http://bugs.python.org/issue8863#msg124373 On my Debian Sid, the libc fatal error message is written as expected (eg. "Segmentation fault") and the exit code is different for each fault (eg. 132 for SIGILL). So we keep the existing behaviour, the new Python fault handler just write more information if a fault occurs. I suppose that it is compatible with the grsecurity thing and Apport, but I didn't tried. Can someone test it? I prefer to restore the previous signal handler than restoring the *default* signal handler. > I choosed to not call the previous handler to keep the patch simple. It's cool: restoring the signal approach keeps the code simple, and it looks like it works :-) Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
