On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Markus Gutschke <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.) cheers! will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
