[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5626EABC.9060202@ezchip.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:30:36 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/14] task_isolation: provide strict mode configurable
signal
On 10/20/2015 8:56 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:36:04 -0400
> Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com> 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.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists