From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:51:28 +0100 Subject: [Question] New mmap64 syscall? In-Reply-To: <59af3a6f-f30c-46a5-2d0b-6a7e36668e6b@redhat.com> References: <20161206185440.GA4654@yury-N73SV> <20161207154811.GA15248@yury-N73SV> <14981df2-b120-17c3-a5a8-5cbbd2008c4f@redhat.com> <20170103205437.GA22548@amd> <59af3a6f-f30c-46a5-2d0b-6a7e36668e6b@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20170112215128.GA14063@amd> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu 2017-01-12 17:13:25, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/03/2017 09:54 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >...actually, with strace and batched interface, it will be impossible > >to see what is going on because of races. So I'm not sure if I like > >the batched interface at all... > > I'm not sure if I understand this problem. > > ioctl, fcntl, most socket system calls, even open all have this problem as > well, right? Yes, ioctl() and similar are problematic. Still it is possible to implement secure sandbox using ptrace. Dealing with indirect mmap() would difficult AFAICT. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: