On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:11:22PM -0600, Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh) wrote:
> How about 2 new PTRACE requests: PTRACE_SET_SIGIGN_MASK,
> PTRACE_GET_SIGIGN_MASK
>
> Both taking a "sigset_t *mask" as a parameter? The mask would be filled
> by the debugger as usual using sigemptyset(), sigfillset(), sigaddset(),
> etc.
>
> Of course, the implementation would do error checking for legal values
> of signals to mask, etc.
>
> And this might require augmenting task_struct {} to store this mask,
> kind of like last_siginfo which is already used by the
> PTRACE_SETSIGINFO/PTRACE_GETSIGINFO ptrace requests.
Hmm, the only problem with this is that it requires consensus on the
format of kernel sigsets. Think about the 32-vs-64-bit compatibility
issues.
It should be cleared on PTRACE_DETACH, of course. Do we even need the
GET functionality? If not, is PTRACE_SET_IGNORE_SIGNAL taking a single
signal number sufficient?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
