On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The terminator for the mode 1 syscalls list was a 0, but that could be > a valid syscall number (e.g. x86_64 __NR_read). By luck, __NR_read was > listed first and the loop construct would not test it, so there was no > bug. However, this is fragile. Replace the terminator with -1 instead, > and make the variable name for mode 1 syscall lists more descriptive. Could the architecture instead supply the length of the list? --Andy
