On May 30, 2014 2:58 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" wrote:
>
> syscall_in_syscall will return true if we're in a real syscall and
> will return false if we're not in a syscall. If we're in a bad
> syscall, the return value can vary.
>
> The idea is to use this to come up with a much simpler replacement
>
On May 30, 2014 2:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
syscall_in_syscall will return true if we're in a real syscall and
will return false if we're not in a syscall. If we're in a bad
syscall, the return value can vary.
The idea is to use this to come up with a much simpler
syscall_in_syscall will return true if we're in a real syscall and
will return false if we're not in a syscall. If we're in a bad
syscall, the return value can vary.
The idea is to use this to come up with a much simpler replacement
for syscall auditing.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
---
syscall_in_syscall will return true if we're in a real syscall and
will return false if we're not in a syscall. If we're in a bad
syscall, the return value can vary.
The idea is to use this to come up with a much simpler replacement
for syscall auditing.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
4 matches
Mail list logo