[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole

* Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:23, Linus Torvalds
> <> 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?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-06 23:33    [W:0.160 / U:1.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site