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

[Will Drewry]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Awesome.  I'll respin using that.
--
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/