Sorry, I meant 2 arguments.
On Apr 9, 2013 5:55 PM, "Thiago Marcos P. Santos" <tmpsan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On x86 we have rt_sigprocmask and sigprocmask and on x86_64
only rt_sigprocmask. In any case, the libc shipped by Ubuntu 12.10 on
both architectures maps sigprocmask(2) to rt_sigprocmask, something that I
could confirm using strace(1). That said, consider the rule below:
>
> ctx = seccomp_init(SCMP_ACT_ALLOW);
>
> seccomp_rule_add(ctx, SCMP_ACT_KILL, SCMP_SYS(rt_sigprocmask), 2,
> SCMP_A0(SCMP_CMP_EQ, SIG_BLOCK),
> SCMP_A1(SCMP_CMP_NE, 0));
>
>
> The following rule works as expected on both archs:
>
> sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, 0, &set); // Executed just fine.
>
>
> This rule matches on x86 but not on x86_64:
>
> sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &set, 0); // Process killed on x86, but not on
x86_64!
>
>
> I first thought that libc could be playing with the parameters or these
syscalls could have different signatures on x86 and x86_64, but looks like
that is not the case. Any suggestion? Am I missing something?
>
> My test case is attached.
>
> Cheers,
I meant 2 arguments. If fact, with just one, works as expected on both
archs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
libseccomp-discuss mailing list
libseccomp-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libseccomp-discuss
