Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:07:05 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF |
| |
On 02/22/2012 03:51 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@nul.nu> wrote: >> On Wed, February 22, 2012 20:47, Will Drewry wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Ben Hutchings >>>> I would have thought the way to make sure the architecture is always >>>> checked is to pack it together with the syscall number. >> >> I missed that suggestion, putting the syscall number and arch in one >> data field would indeed make it harder to not check the arch. > > Is there enough room? On x86-64 at least, rax could conceivably be > extended to 64 bits some day. Bit 30 is already spoken for by x32. >
No it couldn't, because we mask off the high 32 bits and thus it could (theoretically) break user space.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |