On Friday, November 08, 2013 08:39:29 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:05:26 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Eric Paris <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Isn't x32 similarly screwy? Does it work because the syscall numbers > >> > are different? > >> > >> Yes (from reading the code -- I haven't actually tried it). > > > > I've got a x32 VM that I boot occasionally to test seccomp/libseccomp. > > For the purposes of seccomp it looks exactly like x86_64, including > > sharing the same AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64 value, the only difference being the > > syscall number offset ... Assuming you're using kernel 3.9 or later. > > Previous kernels had a bug which stripped the x32 syscall offset so it was > > impossible to distinguish from x86_64 and x32 with seccomp. See the > > following commit for the details: > > Ooh -- where did you get this? (I imagine I could debootstrap such a > beast and then just chroot / nspawn / schroot in, but if there are > readily available images, that would be great. Fedora doesn't seem to > have much x32 support.)
I built up a small Gentoo image: * http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/amd64/current-stage3 -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ libseccomp-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libseccomp-discuss
