[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9haL4pZHJOODh88=HVAJo8DBDJtQAJtSf_L-+518kgEqwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:14:10 -0500
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> 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.
Seems likely - or just my use of them :)
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.
