On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, February 23, 2012 20:26, Will Drewry wrote: >> Seems like there's an argument for another return code, >> SECCOMP_RET_CORE, that resets/unblocks the SIGSYS handler since the >> existing TRAP and KILL options seem to cover the other paths (signal >> handler and do_exit). > > What about making SECCOMP_RET_TRAP dump core/send SIGSYS if there is > no tracer with PTRACE_O_SECCOMP set? And perhaps go for a blockable > SIGSYS? That way you only have KILL, ERRNO and TRAP, with the last > one meaning deny, but giving someone else a chance to do something. > Or is that just confusing? I don't think it makes sense to mix up signal delivery for in-process handling and ptrace. In particular, TRACE calls must assume t the ptracer actually enacted a policy, but with TRAP as is, it always rejects it. > I don't think there should be too many return values, or else you > put too much runtime policy into the filters. I'd rather make it explicit than not. This will be a quagmire if any behavior is implicit. > 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. I believe the point here would be that you'd get a useful coredump without needing to enforce that the process can't handle normal SIGSYS or other syscalls by blocking signal masking. 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
