On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:42:14PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > 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? It could, but I didn't like the way the plumbing for that looked. -- Kees Cook
