ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes: > Why does do_syscal_user_dispatch call do_exit(SIGSEGV) and > do_exit(SIGSYS) instead of force_sig(SIGSEGV) and force_sig(SIGSYS)? > > Looking at the code these cases are not expected to happen, so I would > be surprised if userspace depends on any particular behaviour on the > failure path so I think we can change this. Hi Eric, There is not really a good reason, and the use case that originated the feature doesn't rely on it. Unless I'm missing yet another problem and others correct me, I think it makes sense to change it as you described. > Is using do_exit in this way something you copied from seccomp? I'm not sure, its been a while, but I think it might be just that. The first prototype of SUD was implemented as a seccomp mode. > The reason I am asking is that by using do_exit you deprive userspace > of the change to catch the signal handler and try and fix things. > > Also by using do_exit only a single thread of a multi-thread application > is terminated which seems wrong. > > I am asking because I am going through the callers of do_exit so I can > refactor things and clean things up and this use just looks wrong. Thanks, -- Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
