Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Signed-off-by: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
Acked-by: Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org
---
arch/microblaze/kernel/ptrace.c |2 +-
arch/mips/kernel/ptrace.c |2 +-
arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c|2 +-
arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 15:28 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:36 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
Facilitate the use of CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER by wrapping compatibility
system call
Facilitate the use of CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER by wrapping compatibility
system call numbering for execve and selecting HAVE_SECCOMP_FILTER.
v9: rebase on to bccaeafd7c117acee36e90d37c7e05c19be9e7bf
Signed-off-by: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig |1 +
arch
Facilitate the use of CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER by wrapping compatibility
system call numbering for execve and selecting HAVE_SECCOMP_FILTER.
Signed-off-by: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig |1 +
arch/powerpc/include/asm/seccomp.h |2 ++
2 files changed, 3
Facilitate the use of CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER by wrapping compatibility
system call numbering for execve and selecting HAVE_SECCOMP_FILTER.
Signed-off-by: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig |1 +
arch/powerpc/include/asm/seccomp.h |2 ++
2 files changed, 3
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:07 -0700, Will Drewry wrote:
Do event_* that return non-void exist in the tree at all now? I've
looked at the various
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:59 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 4 +-
include/linux/perf_event.h | 10 +---
kernel/perf_event.c
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:07 -0700, Will Drewry wrote:
Do event_* that return non-void exist in the tree at all now? I've
looked at the various tracepoint macros as well as some of the other
handlers (trace_function
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:42 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 18:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
I agree with you on many of these points! However, I don't think that the
views around LSMs, perf/ftrace infrastructure, or the current seccomp
filtering implementation are necessarily
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
Sorry to be absent from this thread so far, I just got back from my
travels and I'm now catching up on email.
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 22:02 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
Note, i'm not actually asking for the moon, a pony and more.
I fully submit that we are yet far away from being able to do a full LSM
via this mechanism.
What i'm asking
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Eric Paris epa...@redhat.com wrote:
[dropping microblaze and roland]
lOn Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:10 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* James Morris jmor...@namei.org wrote:
It is a simple and sensible security feature, agreed?
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 12 May 2011, Will Drewry wrote:
This change adds a new seccomp mode based on the work by
a...@chromium.org in [1]. This new mode, filter mode, provides a hash
table of seccomp_filter objects. When in the new mode
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Eric Paris epa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 17:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 11:10 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
Then again, I certainly don't see a
reason that this syscall hardening patch should be held up while a whole
[Thanks to everyone for the continued feedback and insights - I appreciate it!]
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* James Morris jmor...@namei.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
2) Why should this concept not be made available wider, to allow
accept.
Signed-off-by: Will Drewry w...@chromium.org
---
arch/arm/Kconfig| 10 +
arch/microblaze/Kconfig | 10 +
arch/mips/Kconfig | 10 +
arch/powerpc/Kconfig| 10 +
arch/s390/Kconfig | 10 +
arch/sh/Kconfig | 10 +
arch/sparc/Kconfig | 10 +
arch
17 matches
Mail list logo
