Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 May 2009 23:29:13 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole |
| |
* Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <markus@google.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:23, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is > > potentially a 2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody > > actually _uses_ seccomp. It does seem to be enabled in at least > > Fedora kernels, but it might not be used anywhere. > > In the Linux version of Google Chrome, we are currently working on > code that will use seccomp for parts of our sandboxing solution.
That's a pretty interesting usage. What would be fallback mode you are using if the kernel doesnt have seccomp built in? Completely non-sandboxed? Or a ptrace/PTRACE_SYSCALL based sandbox?
Ingo -- 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/
| |