Quoting Paul Moore ([email protected]): > On Friday, June 20, 2014 06:46:12 PM Serge Hallyn wrote: > > Ah. Ok, so the problem is that I'm passing to seccomp_rule_add the result > > of seccomp_syscall_resolve_name_arch(). If I use > > seccomp_syscall_resolve_name() then it works. > > > > Is this a bug in libseccomp, or is it designed that way? I guess it's > > designed that way? > > Yes, it's designed this way. Think about how you would add a new rule to a > filter which is configured with multiple ABIs? > > > Should the seccomp_rule_add() manpage be updated to > > clearly state that the seccomp_syscall_resolve_name_arch() return value is > > not to be used there, presumably because the context already knows it's > > doing x86? > > Well, you can use the resolve_name_arch() function, you just need to know to > use it with the native ABI. However, I see your point, we could clarify the > documentation a bit more.
Thanks, Paul, still shaking a few more of my own bugs out, but all makes sense now :) -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems _______________________________________________ libseccomp-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libseccomp-discuss
