[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9haL4pZHJOODh88=HVAJo8DBDJtQAJtSf_L-+518kgEqwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 16:14:10 -0500
From:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>,
	Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com>,
	Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
	serge.hallyn@...onical.com, pmoore@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order?
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 01:48 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
>>
>> That was my first thought too, so I ran a few simple tests.  gcc isn't
>> smart enough to not add ~344 bytes of code to get the number and
>> arguments for the x86/kernel/ptrace.c case I included (in the
>> naive-est of integrations).  But I don't know that it justifies the
>> extra patchwork or enforcing shared code across arches.
>>
>
> I suspect the construction of those inlines can be improved.
Seems likely - or just my use of them :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
