[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 04:08 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Hrm, it might be possible to do_exit(SIGSYS) which would be both. It
>>> looks like tsk->exit_code would be SIGSYS then, but I'll look a little
>>> more closely to see what that'll actually do.
>> As long as there's no way it can get blocked, I'd be fine with that.
>> It would, actually, be better than SIGKILL because, as Andy said, it's
>> more distinguishable from other situations. I've long wanted a signal
>> to be used for "violated policy" that wasn't just a straight SIGKILL.
> Can we really introduce force-kill semantics for a POSIX-defined signal?
>  Other user space programs might use it for other purposes.
> I'm wondering if the right thing may be to introduce some variant of
> exit() which can return more information about a signal, including some
> kind of cause code for SIGKILL?

While it'd be harder to send back extra info, passing SIGSYS to
do_exit() should result in the si_status for the emitted SIGCHLD to be
SIGSYS (si_status = (tsk->exit_code & 0x7f)). I think it'll still
have a si_code of CLD_KILLED, but it'd be enough for a parent to
differentiate the task-death path. I'll try it out before I post
another patch rev.

A variant that allowed extended exit information would be useful
(especially for this patch series), I'm not sure I'd know where to

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: 2012-02-23 17:47    [W:0.063 / U:1.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site