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

[Will Drewry]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Markus Gutschke <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah - the current patchset does that just fine. The tweak I was
proposing was making ti possible to deliver an SIGSYS that always uses
SIG_DFL so that you don't have to play with signal call enforcement in
the filters.

This is a pretty minor tweak either way.
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/