[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 5/8] seccomp: Add SECCOMP_RET_TRAP
    On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
    > On 02/16/2012 12:42 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
    >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Markus Gutschke <> 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.)
    > There is a standard signal for this -- SIGSYS -- which happens to be
    > currently unused in Linux.

    Awesome. I'll respin using that.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-16 22:37    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean