|
Message-ID: <fe2d4b97d84c1e8053c397a20eec7ac8.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:15:51 +0100 From: "Indan Zupancic" <indan@....nu> To: "Will Drewry" <wad@...omium.org> Cc: "Roland McGrath" <mcgrathr@...gle.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>, "Andrew Lutomirski" <luto@....edu>, 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, tglx@...utronix.de, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous. On Thu, February 23, 2012 20:26, Will Drewry wrote: > Seems like there's an argument for another return code, > SECCOMP_RET_CORE, that resets/unblocks the SIGSYS handler since the > existing TRAP and KILL options seem to cover the other paths (signal > handler and do_exit). What about making SECCOMP_RET_TRAP dump core/send SIGSYS if there is no tracer with PTRACE_O_SECCOMP set? And perhaps go for a blockable SIGSYS? That way you only have KILL, ERRNO and TRAP, with the last one meaning deny, but giving someone else a chance to do something. Or is that just confusing? I don't think there should be too many return values, or else you put too much runtime policy into the filters. Sending SIGSYS is useful, but it's quite a bit less useful if user space can't handle it in a signal handler, so I don't think it's worth it to make a unblockable version. Greetings, Indan
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.