Re: the usage of __SYSCALL_MASK in entry_SYSCALL_64/do_syscall_64 is not consistent

2016-06-21 Thread Kees Cook
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/19, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> Something's clearly buggy there, > > The usage of __X32_SYSCALL_BIT doesn't look right too. Nothing serious > but still. > > Damn, initially I thought I have found the serious bug in entry_64.S > and it

the usage of __SYSCALL_MASK in entry_SYSCALL_64/do_syscall_64 is not consistent

2016-06-20 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 06/19, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Something's clearly buggy there, The usage of __X32_SYSCALL_BIT doesn't look right too. Nothing serious but still. Damn, initially I thought I have found the serious bug in entry_64.S and it took me some time to understand why my exploit doesn't work ;) So I l