Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:18:41 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <>
Cc: Andi Kleen <>, Solar Designer <>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, James Morris <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 08:36:57AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 08:27 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> i386 vs x86-64 vs x32 is just one of many axes along which syscalls can be restricted (and for that matter, one axis if backward compatibility), and it does not make sense to burden the code with ad hoc filters.  Designing a general filter facility which can be used to restrict any container to the subset of system calls it actually needs would make more sense, no?
> > 
> > I believe this is already in the newer versions of seccomp.
> > 
> Last I looked seccomp still had a hardcoded list of system calls, but
> perhaps I've been looking in the wrong place.  However, since that's
> exactly what seccomp is -- a system call filter -- this can, and should,
> be unified that way.

True. I guess I confused the endless l-k threads with actual code.

I guess the code was too expensive for the talk back then @)


-- -- Speaking for myself only.

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.