The patch titled
Subject: seccomp: check in_compat_syscall, not is_compat_task, in strict mode
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
seccomp-check-in_compat_syscall-not-is_compat_task-in-strict-mode.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: seccomp: check in_compat_syscall, not is_compat_task, in strict mode
Seccomp wants to know the syscall bitness, not the caller task bitness,
when it selects the syscall whitelist.
As far as I know, this makes no difference on any architecture, so it's
not a security problem. (It generates identical code everywhere except
sparc, and, on sparc, the syscall numbering is the same for both ABIs.)
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/seccomp.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -puN kernel/seccomp.c~seccomp-check-in_compat_syscall-not-is_compat_task-in-strict-mode kernel/seccomp.c
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c~seccomp-check-in_compat_syscall-not-is_compat_task-in-strict-mode
+++ a/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ seccomp_prepare_user_filter(const char _
struct seccomp_filter *filter = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
- if (is_compat_task()) {
+ if (in_compat_syscall()) {
struct compat_sock_fprog fprog32;
if (copy_from_user(&fprog32, user_filter, sizeof(fprog32)))
goto out;
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ static void __secure_computing_strict(in
{
int *syscall_whitelist = mode1_syscalls;
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
- if (is_compat_task())
+ if (in_compat_syscall())
syscall_whitelist = mode1_syscalls_32;
#endif
do {
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from luto@xxxxxxxxxx are
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
