[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAObL_7H14aPuaMjSyoaxWxWzP_=9D1yDiO0EKk9LPi_8-GYeyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:51:40 -0800
From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
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,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org,
scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu> wrote:
> On Wed, February 22, 2012 20:47, Will Drewry wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Ben Hutchings
>>> I would have thought the way to make sure the architecture is always
>>> checked is to pack it together with the syscall number.
>
> I missed that suggestion, putting the syscall number and arch in one
> data field would indeed make it harder to not check the arch.
Is there enough room? On x86-64 at least, rax could conceivably be
extended to 64 bits some day. Bit 30 is already spoken for by x32.
--Andy
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.
