Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2012 16:14:10 -0500 | | Subject | Re: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? | | From | Will Drewry <> |
| |
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > On 05/22/2012 01:48 PM, Will Drewry wrote: >> >> That was my first thought too, so I ran a few simple tests. gcc isn't >> smart enough to not add ~344 bytes of code to get the number and >> arguments for the x86/kernel/ptrace.c case I included (in the >> naive-est of integrations). But I don't know that it justifies the >> extra patchwork or enforcing shared code across arches. >> > > I suspect the construction of those inlines can be improved.
Seems likely - or just my use of them :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |