Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.3] Revert seccomp tests that allow it to be used on non-x86 architectures

[Paul Moore]

On Wednesday, July 01, 2015 02:07:49 PM Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 01:18:49PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 06:07:40 PM Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On 30 June 2015 at 18:01, Paul Moore <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > I'm starting to wonder if the 32-bit ARM build system didn't have
> > > > __NR_cacheflush defined in the system headers; that might explain some
> > > > of
> > > > the behavior.  Could you check your system to see if it has
> > > > __NR_cacheflush defined (try /usr/include/asm/unistd.h)?
> > > 
> > > The constant name is __ARM_NR_cacheflush, not __NR_cacheflush
> > > (all the ARM-specific syscalls are __ARM_NR_*). See
> > > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h#
> > > L418> 
> > /me smacks his forehead
> > 
> > Of course it is.  We already work around that in arch-syscall-validate. 
> > D'oh!
> > 
> > Good news though, I think we just found the bug ;)
> > 
> > I'm currently trying to put out another fire in a different project; as
> > soon as I've got that done I'll fix this.  However, if somebody wants to
> > play, I'm always happy to accept patches :)
> 
> Sent: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/libseccomp/RD9RTmc2Lxo

Applied, thanks.

> I'll send the patch for qemu to add cacheflush to the whitelist shortly.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat