Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:16:10 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@BitBlocks.com> Cc: Antoine Brodin <antoine.brodin@laposte.net>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Stack saving/tracing functionality. Message-ID: <11809.1118650570@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:46:29 PDT." <200506111546.j5BFkToq011515@gate.bitblocks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200506111546.j5BFkToq011515@gate.bitblocks.com>, Bakul Shah writes: >> ... but it would be neat if it could also save/print userland stacks >> so that we could get tracebacks from abort()'ing userland programs. > >Along these lines; wouldn't it be neat if there was a sysctl >to leave a segfaulted or aborted process around so that you >can attach a debugger to it and find out what went wrong (and >may be even correct it!)? Debugging a live process (even if >fatally injured) yields more clues as you can poke around at >its I/O connections, its caller process etc. A separate >program can be used to create a coredump if you really wish >to preseve the dead body for later autopsy. Ideally a coredump should include anything sockstat and fstat can tell you about the process. /me longs for the MVS dumps level of details... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11809.1118650570>