[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
From: Ingo Molnar <>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:29:13 +0200
Cc: Linus Torvalds <>, Roland McGrath <>, Andrew Morton <>,,,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271932520.3111@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271948570.3111@localhost.localdomain> <> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
* Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:23, Linus Torvalds
> <> wrote:

> > 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.
> In the Linux version of Google Chrome, we are currently working on 
> code that will use seccomp for parts of our sandboxing solution.

That's a pretty interesting usage. What would be fallback mode you 
are using if the kernel doesnt have seccomp built in? Completely 
non-sandboxed? Or a ptrace/PTRACE_SYSCALL based sandbox?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>