From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96380DDEEB for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:44:54 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Roland McGrath To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of Saturday, 28 February 2009 09:23:36 -0800 References: <20090228030226.C0D34FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090228030413.5B915FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> Message-Id: <20090302014423.22A6FFC3C6@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:44:23 -0800 (PST) Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , stable@kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is potentially a > 2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody actually _uses_ seccomp. It > does seem to be enabled in at least Fedora kernels, but it might not be > used anywhere. I have no idea who uses it. I just assume that anyone who is using it might be expecting it to be reliable for security purposes as advertised. Thanks, Roland