Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.

[Markus Gutschke]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 14:15, Indan Zupancic <indan@xxxxxx> wrote:
> What about making SECCOMP_RET_TRAP dump core/send SIGSYS if there is
> no tracer with PTRACE_O_SECCOMP set?

Please don't make things dependent on having a tracer. There are
applications that don't really need a tracer; in fact, these are
typically the exact same applications that can benefit from receiving
SIGSYS and then handling it internally.

If a tracer was required to set this up, it would make it difficult to
use gdb, strace, or any other common debugging tools.

> Sending SIGSYS is useful, but it's quite a bit less useful if user
> space can't handle it in a signal handler, so I don't think it's
> worth it to make a unblockable version.

Maybe, I am not parsing your e-mail correctly. But don't we already
get the desired behavior, if SIGSYS is treated the same as any other
synchronous signal? If it is unblocked and has a handler, the
application can decide to handle it. If neither one of these
conditions is true, it terminates the program. Ulimits and
PR_SET_DUMPABLE determine whether a core file is generated.


Markus
--
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/