On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:56:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 18:52:18 +0100
> David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have alternative version posted in December part of SECCOMP
> > patchset which is based on arm64 implementation.
> > 
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2018-December/002450.html
> > 
> > I noticed that SECCOMP wasn't working properly if filters were
> > checking syscall arguments, because populated arguments were wrong.
> > 
> > Btw, I plan to send v2 of SECCOMP patchset soonish.
> 
> Please do. I want to get my patch series out, which will require these
> changes.

Sorry, I haven't seen the alternative patch posted by David before.
Apparently, besides fixing the bug it also introduces new sanity checks
of "i" and "n" arguments in syscall_get_arguments() and
syscall_set_arguments().

Given that your patchset removes these arguments completely,
I see little sense in adding new checks that are going to be removed
by the subsequent commit in the series.


-- 
ldv