[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F3DD84B.30808@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:32:11 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
CC: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Markus Gutschke <markus@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu,
pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On 02/16/2012 08:26 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
>>
>> For x32 you have the option of introducing a new value or relying on bit
>> 30 in eax (and AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64). The latter is more natural, probably.
>
> Will that bit be visible as the syscall number or will it be stripped
> out before passing the number around? If it's visible, then it
> doesn't seem like there'd need to be a new AUDIT_ARCH, but I suspect
> someone like Eric will have an actually useful opinion.
>
Bit 30 is visible in orig_eax; whether you export it as part of "the
syscall number" is presumably TBD, but I think it's more natural to do so.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
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.
