From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: luto@amacapital.net (Andy Lutomirski) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:39:29 -0800 Subject: [libseccomp-discuss] [PATCH v2] seccomp: not compatible with ARM OABI In-Reply-To: <1464650.041viV29xe@sifl> References: <20131107174746.GA22344@www.outflux.net> <1383850597.2938.52.camel@localhost> <1464650.041viV29xe@sifl> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:05:26 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Eric Paris 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.) --Andy