[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18697.1213719134@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:12:14 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
Ivana Varekova <varekova@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PR_SET_SECCOMP and PR_GET_SECCOMP doc (and bug?)
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:32:29 +0200, Michael Kerrisk said:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:13PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >> PR_GET_SECCOMP (since Linux 2.6.23)
> >> Return the secure computing mode of the calling thread.
> >> Not very useful: if the caller is not in secure computing
> >> mode, this operation returns 0; if the caller is in secure
> >> computing mode, then the prctl() call will cause a SIGKILL
> >> signal to be sent to the process. This operation is only
> >> available if the kernel is configured with CONFIG_SECCOMP
> >> enabled.
Would it make sense to change the text to read "Not very useful for the
current implementation of mode=1" and/or add that it may be useful for
future modes that allow prctl() modes other than 1?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists