Re: [PATCH v8 06/14] task_isolation: provide strict mode configurable signal

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 8:56 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:36:04 -0400
>> Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Allow userspace to override the default SIGKILL delivered
>>> when a task_isolation process in STRICT mode does a syscall
>>> or otherwise synchronously enters the kernel.
>>>
>> Is this really a good idea? This means that there's no way to terminate
>> a task in this mode, even if it goes astray.
>
>
> It doesn't map SIGKILL to some other signal unconditionally.  It just allows
> the "hey, you broke the STRICT contract and entered the kernel" signal
> to be something besides the default SIGKILL.
>

...which has the odd side effect that sending a non-fatal signal from
another process will cause the strict process to enter the kernel and
receive an extra signal.

I still dislike this thing.  It seems like a debugging feature being
implemented using signals instead of existing APIs.  I *still* don't
see why perf can't be used to accomplish your goal.

--Andy
--
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/