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