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