[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
