(ccing debian-arm) On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 16:42 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:46:37AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Package: linux > > Severity: normal > > Tags: security > > > > Please refer to: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/448 > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/6/633 > > > > The issue is not yet closed in LKML, but basically OABI_COMPAT enabled seems > > to be a danger: at least seccomp and audit should not be used with OABI, and > > to top it off it is not "free" as far as performance goes, either: a fair > > amount of added complexity, and an extra D-cache miss on every syscall. > > AUDITSYSCALL cannot be enabled if OABI_COMPAT is enabled. I wasn't > aware of the problem with seccomp mode 2 but I agree it's serious. > > I doubt there's any significant demand for OABI_COMPAT and I already > disabled it for some of the size-constrained armel flavours. I'll > wait for input from the ARM porters, but I think it would be > reasonable to disable it for the rest.
I agree (mostly replying just for the CC to the ARM porters). Ian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1383843245.3189.18.ca...@kazak.uk.xensource.com
