Messages in this thread | | | From | Markus Gutschke <> | Date | Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:33:02 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous. |
| |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 14:15, Indan Zupancic <indan@nul.nu> 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
| |