Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] seccomp: Add SECCOMP_RET_TRAP

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/16/2012 12:42 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Markus Gutschke <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/