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

[Will Drewry]

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.)

cheers!
will
--
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/