RE: [RFC PATCH] New SA_NOPRNOTIF sigaction flag

[Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh)]

> Hmm, the only problem with this is that it requires consensus on the
> format of kernel sigsets.  Think about the 32-vs-64-bit compatibility
> issues.
> 
> It should be cleared on PTRACE_DETACH, of course.  Do we even need the
> GET functionality?  If not, is PTRACE_SET_IGNORE_SIGNAL 
> taking a single
> signal number sufficient?

Thanks for reminding me about handling PTRACE_DETACH!

Yeah, we could go with PTRACE_SET_IGNORE_SIGNAL (signum), but we'll
still need a sigset_t like structure in struct task_struct {}. I figured
the PTRACE_SET_SIGIGN_MASK interface would be more flexible and
efficient if someone wanted to have the debugger ignore a whole bunch of
signals at once for a debuggee child.

But I agree, the GET interface is perhaps not required.

Okay, I'll whip out a preliminary patch, and you can all rip it apart if
you find issues with it. Stay tuned...

Thanks for your comments, Daniel!

- Bhavesh



Bhavesh P. Davda | Distinguished Member of Technical Staff | Avaya |
1300 West 120th Avenue | B3-B03 | Westminster, CO 80234 | U.S.A. |
Voice/Fax: 303.538.4438 | bhavesh@xxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/