Re: [RFC PATCH] New SA_NOPRNOTIF sigaction flag

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:11:22PM -0600, Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh) wrote:
> How about 2 new PTRACE requests: PTRACE_SET_SIGIGN_MASK,
> PTRACE_GET_SIGIGN_MASK
> 
> Both taking a "sigset_t *mask" as a parameter? The mask would be filled
> by the debugger as usual using sigemptyset(), sigfillset(), sigaddset(),
> etc.
> 
> Of course, the implementation would do error checking for legal values
> of signals to mask, etc.
> 
> And this might require augmenting task_struct {} to store this mask,
> kind of like last_siginfo which is already used by the
> PTRACE_SETSIGINFO/PTRACE_GETSIGINFO ptrace requests.

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?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
-
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/