Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

[Denys Vlasenko]

On 08/14/2015 12:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
>>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does the attached patch make sense and work?
>>>
>>> Btw, I'm not all that happy with it anyway.
>>>
>>> I still think Denys' patch also potentially changed what audit and
>>> strace see for %rax in the pt_regs to -ENOSYS, which I'm not convinced
>>> is a good change.
>>>
>>> But maybe that three-liner patch fixes the immediate problem that
>>> David sees. David?
>>
>> Your patch fixes it for me. The seccomp compat selftests pass again
>> with audit enabled.
> 
> Kees, would it be straightforward to rig up the seccomp tests to
> automatically test compat?  The x86 selftests automatically test both
> native and compat, and that might be usable as a model.  I did that
> because it's extremely easy to regress one and not the other.

BTW, why 64-bt code doesn't need this RAX read-back?

--
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/