[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
