[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:08:12 +0100
From: "Indan Zupancic" <indan@....nu>
To: "Andrew Lutomirski" <luto@....edu>
Cc: "Will Drewry" <wad@...omium.org>,
"Ben Hutchings" <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
linux-kernel@...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,
hpa@...or.com,
mingo@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org,
rdunlap@...otime.net,
mcgrathr@...omium.org,
tglx@...utronix.de,
eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
djm@...drot.org,
scarybeasts@...il.com,
pmoore@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com,
markus@...omium.org,
keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Thu, February 23, 2012 00:51, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu> wrote:
>> On Wed, February 22, 2012 20:47, Will Drewry wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Ben Hutchings
>>>> I would have thought the way to make sure the architecture is always
>>>> checked is to pack it together with the syscall number.
>>
>> I missed that suggestion, putting the syscall number and arch in one
>> data field would indeed make it harder to not check the arch.
>
> Is there enough room? On x86-64 at least, rax could conceivably be
> extended to 64 bits some day. Bit 30 is already spoken for by x32.
No, there isn't.
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.
