linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:44:23 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
In-reply-to: Linus Torvalds's message of Saturday, 28 February 2009 09:23:36 -0800 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20090228030226.C0D34FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090228030413.5B915FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271932520.3111@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271948570.3111@localhost.localdomain> <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
> And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is potentially a 
> 2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody actually _uses_ seccomp. It 
> does seem to be enabled in at least Fedora kernels, but it might not be 
> used anywhere.

I have no idea who uses it.  I just assume that anyone who is using it
might be expecting it to be reliable for security purposes as advertised.


Thanks,
Roland

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole, Roland McGrath <=