From: pmoore@redhat.com (Paul Moore)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [libseccomp-discuss] [PATCH v2] seccomp: not compatible with ARM OABI
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:23:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2521056.N3R8bTMgyo@sifl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWx0T28jdC-pW5xTPhRYJsbp+byeF5CAwZh0gXdd09RNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday, November 08, 2013 08:39:29 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:05:26 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> 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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: libseccomp-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [libseccomp-discuss] [PATCH v2] seccomp: not compatible with ARM OABI
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:23:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2521056.N3R8bTMgyo@sifl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWx0T28jdC-pW5xTPhRYJsbp+byeF5CAwZh0gXdd09RNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday, November 08, 2013 08:39:29 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:05:26 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-08 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-07 17:47 [PATCH v2] seccomp: not compatible with ARM OABI Kees Cook
2013-11-07 17:47 ` Kees Cook
2013-11-07 18:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-07 18:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-07 18:39 ` Kees Cook
2013-11-07 18:39 ` Kees Cook
2013-11-07 18:56 ` Eric Paris
2013-11-07 18:56 ` Eric Paris
2013-11-07 19:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-07 19:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-08 16:29 ` [libseccomp-discuss] " Paul Moore
2013-11-08 16:29 ` Paul Moore
2013-11-08 16:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-08 16:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-08 18:23 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2013-11-08 18:23 ` Paul Moore
2013-11-07 20:33 ` Dave Martin
2013-11-07 20:33 ` Dave Martin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2521056.N3R8bTMgyo@sifl \
--to=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.