On 08/14/2015 12:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Does the attached patch make sense and work? >>> >>> Btw, I'm not all that happy with it anyway. >>> >>> I still think Denys' patch also potentially changed what audit and >>> strace see for %rax in the pt_regs to -ENOSYS, which I'm not convinced >>> is a good change. >>> >>> But maybe that three-liner patch fixes the immediate problem that >>> David sees. David? >> >> Your patch fixes it for me. The seccomp compat selftests pass again >> with audit enabled. > > Kees, would it be straightforward to rig up the seccomp tests to > automatically test compat? The x86 selftests automatically test both > native and compat, and that might be usable as a model. I did that > because it's extremely easy to regress one and not the other.
BTW, why 64-bt code doesn't need this RAX read-back? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
