lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-06 23:33    [W:0.116 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site