Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.
From: Indan Zupancic <hidden>
Date: 2012-02-23 22:16:11
Also in:
lkml, netdev
From: Indan Zupancic <hidden>
Date: 2012-02-23 22:16:11
Also in:
lkml, netdev
On Thu, February 23, 2012 20:26, Will Drewry wrote:
Seems like there's an argument for another return code, SECCOMP_RET_CORE, that resets/unblocks the SIGSYS handler since the existing TRAP and KILL options seem to cover the other paths (signal handler and do_exit).
What about making SECCOMP_RET_TRAP dump core/send SIGSYS if there is no tracer with PTRACE_O_SECCOMP set? And perhaps go for a blockable SIGSYS? That way you only have KILL, ERRNO and TRAP, with the last one meaning deny, but giving someone else a chance to do something. Or is that just confusing? I don't think there should be too many return values, or else you put too much runtime policy into the filters. 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. Greetings, Indan