From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:24:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 3/3] arm64: Add seccomp support In-Reply-To: <53E47DCE.4080902@linaro.org> References: <1406020499-5537-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <1406020499-5537-4-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <53D082E9.8090303@amacapital.net> <53D09C4F.9010104@linaro.org> <53D2255C.9050006@linaro.org> <53E47DCE.4080902@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20140811092409.GE15344@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 08:35:42AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On 08/06/2014 12:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM, AKASHI Takahiro > > wrote: > >> I found a bug in my current patch (v5). When 32-bit tracer skips a system call, > >> we should not update syscallno from x8 since syscallno is re-written directly > >> via ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL). > > > > Ah, yes. Will aarch64 have a PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL option, or is this > > strictly a 32-bit vs 64-bit issue? > > As discussed in a few weeks ago, aarch64 won't support PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL. Well, I don't think anything was set in stone. If you have a compelling reason why adding the new request gives you something over setting w8 directly, then we can extend ptrace. Will