Re: [PATCH 3.5 2/2] seccomp: Future-proof against silly tracers

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
> return the value from pt_regs).  This is silly; we should just
> return -ENOSYS.
>
> This is unlikely to ever happen on x86 because the return value in
> pt_regs starts out as -ENOSYS, but a silly tracer can change that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h |   11 +++++++++++
>  kernel/seccomp.c               |   15 +++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Will, can you pick this, or some version of it, up in your
seccomp-for-ARM tree or wherever your development is?

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/