There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded some of the tracehook logic into the callers to make this code
more readable. Since
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded some of the tracehook logic into the callers to make this code
more readable. Since
One really minor nit...
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:59:31PM +, Kees Cook wrote:
> There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
> move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
>
>
One really minor nit...
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:59:31PM +, Kees Cook wrote:
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded some of the tracehook logic into the callers to make this code
more readable. Since
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded some of the tracehook logic into the callers to make this code
more readable. Since
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded some of the tracehook logic into the callers to make this code
more readable. Since
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> It's pointless having:
>
> tst r10, #_TIF_SECCOMP
> bne __sys_trace
> tst r10, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
> bne __sys_trace
>
> Instead, make TIF_SECCOMP be bit 11, combine it into
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:46:37PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> - tst r10, #_TIF_SECCOMP
> - beq 1f
> - mov r0, scno
> - bl __secure_computing
> - add r0, sp, #S_R0 + S_OFF @ pointer to regs
> - ldmia r0, {r0 -
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER without mangling the assembly too badly,
seccomp was moved into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded ptrace_syscall_trace() into both
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER without mangling the assembly too badly,
seccomp was moved into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded ptrace_syscall_trace() into both
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:46:37PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
- tst r10, #_TIF_SECCOMP
- beq 1f
- mov r0, scno
- bl __secure_computing
- add r0, sp, #S_R0 + S_OFF @ pointer to regs
- ldmia r0, {r0 - r3}
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
It's pointless having:
tst r10, #_TIF_SECCOMP
bne __sys_trace
tst r10, #_TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
bne __sys_trace
Instead, make TIF_SECCOMP be bit 11, combine it
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_WORK
path in entry-common.S, so merge TIF_SECCOMP into TIF_SYSCALL_WORK and
move seccomp into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Expanded some of the tracehook logic into the callers to make this code
more readable. Since
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:41:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> From: Will Drewry
>>
>> There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
>> path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
>>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:41:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
From: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:41:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> From: Will Drewry
>
> There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
> path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER without mangling the assembly too badly,
> seccomp
From: Will Drewry
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER without mangling the assembly too badly,
seccomp was moved into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
Additionally, the
From: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER without mangling the assembly too badly,
seccomp was moved into the syscall_trace_enter() handler.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:41:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
From: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
There is very little difference in the TIF_SECCOMP and TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
path in entry-common.S. In order to add support for
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER without mangling the assembly too badly,
20 matches
Mail list logo