On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
It's hiding inside of RESTORE_C_REGS_EXCEPT_RCX_R11. --Andy -- 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/
