On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Markus Gutschke <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yeah - the current patchset does that just fine. The tweak I was proposing was making ti possible to deliver an SIGSYS that always uses SIG_DFL so that you don't have to play with signal call enforcement in the filters. This is a pretty minor tweak either way. 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
