On 12/04/2013 07:39 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00:24AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
Developers will only be happy with seccomp if it's easy and rewarding to
support/debug.
Agreed.
As a developer, how do you feel about the audit/syslog based approach I
mentioned earlier?
I used the commands you posted (I think that's what you mean). They
produce useful output.
The problem is that without an error message on stderr or from the
shell, no one will think "QEMU process dead and hung == check seccomp"
immediately. It's frustrating to deal with a "silent" failure.
The process dies with a SIGKILL, and sig handling in Qemu is hard to
implement due to dozen of external linked libraries that has their own
signal masks and conflicts with seccomp. I've already tried this
approach in the past (you can find in the list by searching for debug mode)
The optimal goal here is to use virt-test and audit log to eliminate
these sorts of things.
--
Eduardo Otubo
IBM Linux Technology Center
