MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F3DD84B.30808@zytor.com>
References: <1329422549-16407-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<1329422549-16407-3-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<4F3D61CB.2000301@zytor.com>
	<CABqD9hb3WxKxLZ2GuUrbDM--koW+a3ser5TU8y6+e0sAhOT9dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F3D7250.6040504@zytor.com>
	<CAE6n16kweRehdozft0tKOB1P5LtGFJDCLQP=2EXfm8P0enyH=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F3D766E.7040205@zytor.com>
	<CABqD9haWxRLac1w3m9rSmyDvcg8jxYcxdmAAsgB7pEEBMHr=2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F3D7DD4.6070103@zytor.com>
	<CABqD9hZd41AWZub+wxGWwxJtGWfk+pVWQhn7DM_0q0tS9r_wDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1329439809.2337.32.camel@localhost>
	<CABqD9hY06gaA7T8f0Te9PFpip6ix7CcbRShWcXutxbivEZJ2og@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F3DD39C.9090905@zytor.com>
	<CABqD9haiko3xLUKFp_MZcd8G7Hsyif75ABk1HOVKNJ7=NZRRsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F3DD84B.30808@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:40:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CABqD9haCev6CKyAU+JmZTxQfRpThiz4HOT7uJkvrjAEUO6=iJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
From: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, Markus Gutschke <markus@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        davem@davemloft.net, mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mcgrathr@chromium.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, serge.hallyn@canonical.com,
        djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, indan@nul.nu,
        pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        eric.dumazet@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 979
Lines: 21

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 08:26 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
>>>
>>> For x32 you have the option of introducing a new value or relying on bit
>>> 30 in eax (and AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64). ?The latter is more natural, probably.
>>
>> Will that bit be visible as the syscall number or will it be stripped
>> out before passing the number around? ?If it's visible, then it
>> doesn't seem like there'd need to be a new AUDIT_ARCH, but I suspect
>> someone like Eric will have an actually useful opinion.
>>
>
> Bit 30 is visible in orig_eax; whether you export it as part of "the
> syscall number" is presumably TBD, but I think it's more natural to do so.

That's what I meant - thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/