From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using
	BPF
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:05:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20120117170512.GB17070@redhat.com>
References: <20120112172315.GA26295@redhat.com> <CABqD9hZg4sKiVMS-g5ed7-HKOaiUb06y05TL=QkfBkm9kVmquA@mail.gmail.com> <20120113173153.GA24273@redhat.com> <CABqD9hYYJMNtupTiD48sE5wz6RKaFi9J3DpVRyV4X2FpnT3Mnw@mail.gmail.com> <CABqD9hbhcEr0idfBVb9sXiAP1rBVUtzWmORq0WL1MF-eWW-nvQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120116183730.GB21112@redhat.com> <CABqD9hY3DtOqBWDofMQhHNKeUbz4ebfOENKVJkqE+AjRqZFkZA@mail.gmail.com> <20120117164523.GA17070@redhat.com> <CABqD9hYZ4yX76EaWgm2G8HuKgYPMxcxWRTHEazmxWNFL-mgY2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAObL_7E1gtDF8Bjb9vmFFkVFmxWbx4DrgGU0QPJEd6KXgS7U8A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com,
	serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, segoon@openwall.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com,
	avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com,
	borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
	eric.dumazet@gmail.com, gregkh@suse.de, dhowells@redhat.com,
	daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org,
	mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor@redhat.com,
	Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@chromium.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, indan@nul.nu
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAObL_7E1gtDF8Bjb9vmFFkVFmxWbx4DrgGU0QPJEd6KXgS7U8A@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On 01/17, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
> (is_compat_task says whether the executable was marked as 32-bit.  The
> actual execution mode is determined by the cs register, which the user
> can control.

Confused... Afaics, TIF_IA32 says that the binary is 32-bit (this comes
along with TS_COMPAT).

TS_COMPAT says that, say, the task did "int 80" to enters the kernel.
64-bit or not, we should treat is as 32-bit in this case.

No?

Oleg.