Re: SIGKILL on child spawned with system(), runs fine by hand
Greetings, and thanks again so much for your help with this!
"Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Camm Maguire <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Greetings! So this is not a kernel error? These messages are
>> debugging code only for userland segfaults? My apologies if so for
>> misunderstanding. Looked like an oops.
> It is not an oops. It is a debugging aid for application developers,
> it's the context when the application faulted.
>> I'll try to isolate, but my guess is that this is dependent on the
>> memory layout of the parent program. Could some fork be running into
>> already used memory? I have a smaller executable from a different gcl
>> version which does not trigger this on the same machine.
> I don't know what you mean by "fork be running into already used memory."
I presume system() calls fork or similar. Which can die if memory is
not available for some reason.
>> Why can't I get a segfault in gdb with an offending address in the
>> normal fashion if this is either libc or my program? The sigkill is
>> what made me suspect the kernel.
> When run under gdb it doesn't fault?
No. system() returns 9 to the parent. The parent does not fault.
>> Can I decode the instruction on paer? If so how?
> Use this program, it takes hex IIR values and converts them into instructions:
> Be careful that some instructions decode to slightly different
> variants, but the same instruction non-the-less.
Thanks, I'll check this out.
Camm Maguire email@example.com
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah