[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 Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Markus Gutschke <> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 14:15, Indan Zupancic <> 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-23 23:39    [W:0.073 / U:35.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site