On 02/16/2012 12:42 PM, Will Drewry wrote: > 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.) > There is a standard signal for this -- SIGSYS -- which happens to be currently unused in Linux. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
