[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:09:29 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...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, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 08/15] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:01 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 02:05 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hm, I'm surprised that we don't have a zero-returning implementation of
> >>> is_compat_task() when CONFIG_COMPAT=n. Seems silly. Blames Arnd.
> >>
> >> There is
> >
> > I can't find it. The definition in include/linux/compat.h is inside
> > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT.
> >
>
> I thought Linus globalized it very recently...
Oh, yeah, I misread.
We should be able to remove quite a few open-coded ifdefs now.
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.
