On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 14:15, Indan Zupancic <indan@xxxxxx> 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. Markus -- 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
