On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:23 AM Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:57:18 +0530 > <jer...@marvell.com> wrote: > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > Introducing oops handling API with following specification > > and enable stub implementation for Linux and FreeBSD. > > > > On rte_eal_init() invocation, the EAL library installs the > > oops handler for the essential signals. > > The rte_oops_signals_enabled() API provides the list > > of signals the library installed by the EAL. > > This is a big change, and many applications already handle these > signals themselves. Therefore adding this needs to be opt-in > and not enabled by default.
In order to avoid every application explicitly register this sighandler and to cater to the co-existing application-specific signal-hander usage. The following design has been chosen. (It is mentioned in the commit log, I will describe here for more clarity) Case 1: a) The application installs the signal handler prior to rte_eal_init(). b) Implementation stores the application-specific signal and replace a signal handler as oops eal handler c) when application/DPDK get the segfault, the default EAL oops handler gets invoked d) Then it dumps the EAL specific message, it calls the application-specific signal handler installed in step 1 by application. This avoids breaking any contract with the application. i.e Behavior is the same current EAL now. That is the reason for not using SA_RESETHAND(which call SIG_DFL after eal oops handler instead application-specific handler) Case 2: a) The application install the signal handler after rte_eal_init(), b) EAL hander get replaced with application handle then the application can call rte_oops_decode() to decode. In order to cater the above use case, rte_oops_signals_enabled() and rte_oops_decode() provided. Here we are not breaking any contract with the application. Do you have concerns about this design?
