Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:31:07 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, "libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, "libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org" <libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com, Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: Re: Powerpc Linux 'scv' system call ABI proposal take 2 Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of April 22, 2020 5:15 pm: > * Nicholas Piggin: > >> Another option would be to use a different signal. I don't see that any >> are more suitable. > > SIGSYS comes to my mind. But I don't know how exclusively it is > associated with seccomp these days. SIGSYS is entirely seccomp now. There looks like a single obscure MIPS user of it in Linux that's not seccomp, but it would be entirely new for powerpc (or any of the common platforms, arm, x86 etc). So I would be disinclined to use SIGSYS unless there are no other better signal types, and we don't want to use SIGILL for some good reason -- is there a good reason to add complexity for userspace by differentiating these two situations? Thanks, Nick
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.