Re: [PATCH] A terminating signal has to complete a bash process

[Andrei Vagin]

Hello Chet,

Have you had a chance to try this patch? Let me know if you will have
any questions.

Thanks,
Andrei

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:29:13PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 5/1/18 7:55 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> 
> >> If it's not obvious, I'm trying to determine whether making this change
> >> will add any more value than simply exiting (perhaps with a particular
> >> exit status).
> > 
> > It will add more value. Without this changes, we will not know whether a
> > bach process crashed or exited. If it will not generate a core dump after
> > a crash, the tools like abrtd, coredumpd, etc will not detect this crash
> > and will not report about this abnormal behaviour.
> 
> OK, we'll try it. I'll be interested to see if any core dumps created by
> causing a SIGSEGV will overwrite any stack information from the `real'
> fatal signal.
> 
> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> -- 
> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
>                ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
> Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/