On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Will Deacon wrot
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASH
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrot
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> >> On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >>
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>
> Hi Akashi,
>
>> On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> What's the state of seccomp on arm6
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Hi Will,
Hi Akashi,
> On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> What's the state of seccomp on arm64? I saw a series back in March,
> >> but nothing since then?
Hi Will,
On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:10:46PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2
On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:10:46PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:10:46PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Will Deacon
> >> > wro
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:10:46PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> Right, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I was confused, becaus
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:10:46PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> Right, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I was confused, because
> >> tracehook_report_syscall does the right thing (retu
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 05:44:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> > I'm struggling to see the bug in the current code, so apologies if
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 05:44:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > I'm struggling to see the bug in the current code, so apologies if my
>> > questions aren't helpful.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 05:44:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'm struggling to see the bug in the current code, so apologies if my
> > questions aren't helpful.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:27:48PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> An x86 tr
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> I'm struggling to see the bug in the current code, so apologies if my
> questions aren't helpful.
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:27:48PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
>> An x86 tracer wanting to change the syscall uses PTRACE_SETREGS
>>
Hi Kees,
I'm struggling to see the bug in the current code, so apologies if my
questions aren't helpful.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:27:48PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> An x86 tracer wanting to change the syscall uses PTRACE_SETREGS
> (stored to regs->orig_ax), and an ARM tracer uses PTRACE_SET_SYSC
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> An x86 tracer wanting to change the syscall uses PTRACE_SETREGS
> (stored to regs->orig_ax), and an ARM tracer uses PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL
> (stored to current_thread_info()->syscall). When this happens, the
> syscall can change across the call to se
An x86 tracer wanting to change the syscall uses PTRACE_SETREGS
(stored to regs->orig_ax), and an ARM tracer uses PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL
(stored to current_thread_info()->syscall). When this happens, the
syscall can change across the call to secure_computing(), since it may
block on tracer notification
18 matches
Mail list logo