[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202007161300.7452A2C5@keescook>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:04:38 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...labora.com, gofmanp@...il.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Syscall User Redirection
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:31:39PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> This is v4 of Syscall User Redirection. The implementation itself is
> not modified from v3, it only applies the latest round of reviews to the
> selftests.
>
> __NR_syscalls is not really exported in header files other than
> asm-generic for every architecture, so it felt safer to optionally
> expose it with a fallback to a high value.
>
> Also, I didn't expose tests for PR_GET as that is not currently
> implemented. If possible, I'd have it supported by a future patchset,
> since it is not immediately necessary to support this feature.
Thanks! That all looks good to me.
> Finally, one question: Which tree would this go through?
I haven't heard from several other x86 maintainers yet (which is where
I would normally expect this series to land), but I would be comfortable
taking this through my seccomp tree if I got Acks/Reviews at least from
Andy and Matthew.
Andy, Matthew, what do you think of this?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists