On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:26:31AM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Hrm.… > > > Sure, it’s attached, and it seems really weird… > > … I had thought someone had defined NULL as just 0 > (although dalias makes a good argument for it) and > it was passed as a too-short sentinel, but it uses > execve, so that was not it. > > But I see a lot of seccomp stuff in there, which, > obviously, is not there when I just run it from the > shell. Syscall numbers on x32 differ, so perhaps, > that is already the culprit?
I have a feeling that this is basically another iteration of https://bugs.debian.org/850047. While building a system to test it, though, I ran into apt's seccomp sandbox also being broken on x32 (very likely for the same kind of reason), so I'm yak-shaving my way towards this ... -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]