[Question] New mmap64 syscall?
From: Pavel Machek <hidden>
Date: 2017-01-12 21:51:33
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
From: Pavel Machek <hidden>
Date: 2017-01-12 21:51:33
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On Thu 2017-01-12 17:13:25, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/03/2017 09:54 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:quoted
...actually, with strace and batched interface, it will be impossible to see what is going on because of races. So I'm not sure if I like the batched interface at all...I'm not sure if I understand this problem. ioctl, fcntl, most socket system calls, even open all have this problem as well, right?
Yes, ioctl() and similar are problematic. Still it is possible to implement secure sandbox using ptrace. Dealing with indirect mmap() would difficult AFAICT. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20170112/d730fd12/attachment-0001.sig>