On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys, > behavior will differ between kernels that know about > __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which > return the value from pt_regs). This is silly; we should just > return -ENOSYS. > > This is unlikely to ever happen on x86 because the return value in > pt_regs starts out as -ENOSYS, but a silly tracer can change that. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> > Cc: Will Drewry <w...@chromium.org> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 11 +++++++++++ > kernel/seccomp.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Will, can you pick this, or some version of it, up in your seccomp-for-ARM tree or wherever your development is? --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
