On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Awesome. I'll respin using that. -- 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
