[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E47EB99.1020909@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:36:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls
On 08/14/2011 08:27 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> i386 vs x86-64 vs x32 is just one of many axes along which syscalls can be restricted (and for that matter, one axis if backward compatibility), and it does not make sense to burden the code with ad hoc filters. Designing a general filter facility which can be used to restrict any container to the subset of system calls it actually needs would make more sense, no?
>
> I believe this is already in the newer versions of seccomp.
>
Last I looked seccomp still had a hardcoded list of system calls, but
perhaps I've been looking in the wrong place. However, since that's
exactly what seccomp is -- a system call filter -- this can, and should,
be unified that way.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
