on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:56:53AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Charles Blundell wrote:
> > I have written the code for two extra options to systrace that I
> > think will help when systrace comes across less than usual situations.
> 
> I think they're great ideas, especially the former.  Would the
> latter be more usefully/generally handled by a new action type,
> say "kill" or "terminate" - or even "signal" with an argument?

I was going to do something like this, but I'm not so sure. We
already have -A and -a, so I figured putting this at the top level
made sense, instead of stuff like:

  for x in $(jot 10); do systrace -m learn,random-20,kill ls; done