|
Message-ID: <4FBC0078.7010002@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:09:12 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> CC: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com>, Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org Subject: Re: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? On 05/22/2012 01:48 PM, Will Drewry wrote: > > That was my first thought too, so I ran a few simple tests. gcc isn't > smart enough to not add ~344 bytes of code to get the number and > arguments for the x86/kernel/ptrace.c case I included (in the > naive-est of integrations). But I don't know that it justifies the > extra patchwork or enforcing shared code across arches. > I suspect the construction of those inlines can be improved. -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.