[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hZSLqn+=jr6sWwp_eJ5WsuGpH2Khoc_7aRmYt+1ZaEGoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:42:50 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Markus Gutschke <markus@...omium.org>
Cc: 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,
hpa@...or.com, 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 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.)
cheers!
will
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.
