On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/20/2015 8:56 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:36:04 -0400 >> Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Allow userspace to override the default SIGKILL delivered >>> when a task_isolation process in STRICT mode does a syscall >>> or otherwise synchronously enters the kernel. >>> >> Is this really a good idea? This means that there's no way to terminate >> a task in this mode, even if it goes astray. > > > It doesn't map SIGKILL to some other signal unconditionally. It just allows > the "hey, you broke the STRICT contract and entered the kernel" signal > to be something besides the default SIGKILL. > ...which has the odd side effect that sending a non-fatal signal from another process will cause the strict process to enter the kernel and receive an extra signal. I still dislike this thing. It seems like a debugging feature being implemented using signals instead of existing APIs. I *still* don't see why perf can't be used to accomplish your goal. --Andy -- 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
