On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> 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 <l...@amacapital.net> >> Cc: Will Drewry <w...@chromium.org> >> --- >> 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?
I'm still not sure about this change though the end result is nice. Regardless, I'll explore it when I can -- my family has just increased in size, so I'm going to be a bit delayed! cheers! will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
