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:4.179 / U:0.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site