On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:05:26 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Eric Paris <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Isn't x32 similarly screwy? Does it work because the syscall numbers >> > are different? >> >> Yes (from reading the code -- I haven't actually tried it). > > I've got a x32 VM that I boot occasionally to test seccomp/libseccomp. For > the purposes of seccomp it looks exactly like x86_64, including sharing the > same AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64 value, the only difference being the syscall number > offset ... Assuming you're using kernel 3.9 or later. Previous kernels had a > bug which stripped the x32 syscall offset so it was impossible to distinguish > from x86_64 and x32 with seccomp. See the following commit for the details:
Ooh -- where did you get this? (I imagine I could debootstrap such a beast and then just chroot / nspawn / schroot in, but if there are readily available images, that would be great. Fedora doesn't seem to have much x32 support.) --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
