On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:39:09AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 02/19/2014 12:38 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:11:31AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ #include <linux/smp.h> #include <linux/ptrace.h> #include <linux/user.h> +#include <linux/seccomp.h> #include <linux/security.h> #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/signal.h> @@ -1064,6 +1065,10 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct pt_regs *regs) { unsigned long saved_reg;
- if (!dir && secure_computing((int)regs->syscallno))
/* seccomp failures shouldn't expose any additional code. */return -1;That's only restricted to the arm64 code but could we use a more meaningful error number?
Other architectures, including arm, also return just -1 in syscall_trace_enter(), but of course, we can use another value, say, -EPERM or -ENOSYS?
Actually we have another case of setting regs->syscallno = ~0UL in the same function, so we could do the same (also in line with entry.S).