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

[Indan Zupancic]

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


--
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/