Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:15:51 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous. | From | "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
| |