On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:26:31AM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > 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
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]