|
Message-ID: <CABqD9hbW_z-x7tgnBHPqVry=XLo+HDFtAhdXKHG+fxgn6fB6_g@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:33:47 -0600 From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Markus Gutschke <markus@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] seccomp: Add SECCOMP_RET_TRAP On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > On 02/16/2012 12:42 PM, Will Drewry wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Markus Gutschke <markus@...omium.org> wrote: >>> SIGTRAP might not be the ideal choice of signal number, as it can make it >>> very difficult to debug the program in gdb. >> >> True enough. In theory, we could use the lower 16-bits of the return >> value to let the bpf program set a signal, but not all signals are >> masked synchronous and those that are probably get gdb's attention, >> just not a severely :) (ILL, SEGV, BUS, TRAP, FPE). Perhaps SIGILL is >> a logically appropriate option -- or letting the api user decide from >> the SYNCHRONOUS_MASK set. I'm open to whatever makes sense, though. >> (I wasn't even sure if it was kosher to add a new TRAP_SECCOMP value.) >> > > There is a standard signal for this -- SIGSYS -- which happens to be > currently unused in Linux. Awesome. I'll respin using that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.