[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9haCev6CKyAU+JmZTxQfRpThiz4HOT7uJkvrjAEUO6=iJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:40:51 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> 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.
That's what I meant - thanks!
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.
