On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
>>> audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
audit exit hook on the badsys
On 06/20/2014 05:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
>>> audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
>> audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug report
>> correctly, this causes OOPSes.
>>
>> The
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug report
correctly, this causes OOPSes.
The
On 06/20/2014 05:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 11:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> [cc: hpa, x86 list]
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted,
On 06/16/2014 11:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [cc: hpa, x86 list]
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
>>> Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
>>> triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
On 06/16/2014 11:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: hpa, x86 list]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de wrote:
On 06/16/2014 11:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: hpa, x86 list]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
Well, might be the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> For 64-bit, I want to do this instead:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/seccomp-fastpath=a5ec2d7af2c54b55fc7201fa662138b53fbbda39
>>
>> I see no reason why the 64-bit badsys code needs its
>
> For 64-bit, I want to do this instead:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/seccomp-fastpath=a5ec2d7af2c54b55fc7201fa662138b53fbbda39
>
> I see no reason why the 64-bit badsys code needs its own code path at
> all. I haven't sent it yet because
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
>> audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug report
>> correctly, this causes OOPSes.
>>
>> The
On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
> audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug report
> correctly, this causes OOPSes.
>
> The the world at large: it's increasingly apparent that no one
[cc: hpa, x86 list]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
>> Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
>> triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
>> Unfortunately it does not appear within an UML guest,
Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
> Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
> triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
> Unfortunately it does not appear within an UML guest, therefore an automated
> bisecting isn't possible I fear.
You could try KVM. :)
Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
Unfortunately it does not appear within an UML guest, therefore an automated
bisecting isn't possible I fear.
--
Toralf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On 06/16/2014 08:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Toralf Förster
> wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 08:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster
>>> wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> cc: eparis.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 08:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
On Mon, Jun 16,
On 06/16/2014 08:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster
> wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster
>>> wrote:
On 06/16/2014
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster
> wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 19:25,
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at
On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster
>>> wrote:
$ cat syscall.c
#include
#include
Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster
>> wrote:
>>> $ cat syscall.c
>>> #include
>>> #include
>>> int main(){return syscall(1000)!=-1;}
>
> What architecture are you
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster
> wrote:
>> $ cat syscall.c
>> #include
>> #include
>> int main(){return syscall(1000)!=-1;}
What architecture are you building for? On i386 and x86_64, 1000
shouldn't be big enough
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> $ cat syscall.c
> #include
> #include
> int main(){return syscall(1000)!=-1;}
>
> (pls see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513308) gives at a 32 bit
> stable Gentoo Linux w/ kernel 3.15 :
>
> Jun 16 18:29:42 n22 kernel:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de wrote:
$ cat syscall.c
#include unistd.h
#include sys/syscall.h
int main(){return syscall(1000)!=-1;}
(pls see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513308) gives at a 32 bit
stable Gentoo Linux w/ kernel 3.15 :
Jun
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
$ cat syscall.c
#include unistd.h
#include sys/syscall.h
int main(){return syscall(1000)!=-1;}
What architecture are you
Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
$ cat syscall.c
#include unistd.h
#include sys/syscall.h
int main(){return
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
$
On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM,
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 19:25, schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
On
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski
On 06/16/2014 08:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit bug.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de wrote:
On 06/16/2014 08:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
cc: eparis. This might be a new audit
On 06/16/2014 08:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
On 06/16/2014 08:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Toralf Förster toralf.foers...@gmx.de
wrote:
On 06/16/2014 07:50 PM, Andy
Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
Unfortunately it does not appear within an UML guest, therefore an automated
bisecting isn't possible I fear.
--
Toralf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
Unfortunately it does not appear within an UML guest, therefore an automated
bisecting isn't possible I fear.
You could try KVM. :)
[cc: hpa, x86 list]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 16.06.2014 22:41, schrieb Toralf Förster:
Well, might be the mail:subject should be adapted, b/c the issue can be
triggered in a 3.13.11 kernel too.
Unfortunately it does not appear within an UML
On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug report
correctly, this causes OOPSes.
The the world at large: it's increasingly apparent that no one (except
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
To hpa, etc: It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
audit exit hook on the badsys path. If I'm diagnosing this bug report
correctly, this causes OOPSes.
The
For 64-bit, I want to do this instead:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/seccomp-fastpathid=a5ec2d7af2c54b55fc7201fa662138b53fbbda39
I see no reason why the 64-bit badsys code needs its own code path at
all. I haven't sent it yet because AFAICT it
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
For 64-bit, I want to do this instead:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/seccomp-fastpathid=a5ec2d7af2c54b55fc7201fa662138b53fbbda39
I see no reason why the 64-bit badsys code needs
46 matches
Mail list logo
