qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 1/5] seccomp: adding new syscalls (bugzilla 85


From: Corey Bryant
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 1/5] seccomp: adding new syscalls (bugzilla 855162)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:59:21 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2



On 11/26/2012 12:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2012 11:41:06 AM Corey Bryant wrote:
On 11/21/2012 10:24 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:20:44 AM Eduardo Otubo wrote:
Hello folks,

Does anyone had a chance to take a look at this? We would like to get
this into the 1.3 release.

Thanks again :)

I way a bit delayed due to travel, but I started playing with it a bit
yesterday afternoon and unfortunately it still doesn't work for me (using
the same test/reproducer I documented in the RH BZ).  I've tried running
QEMU both via libvirt and the command line (using a libvirt derived
command line).

I'm applying the patches to the F17 QEMU 1.2 package; there is some minor
fixup needed in the configure script but nothing major.

What is further frustrating is that the debug code (patch 5/5) doesn't
seem to output the problematic syscall.  I wanted to investigate this a
bit more before responding, but with the holiday approaching
(Thanksgiving in the US), I'm not sure how much progress I'll be able to
make for the remainder of this week.  Sorry about that.

If you have any further questions about how, or what, I'm testing, just
ask.

Paul, Is your host 32 or 64-bit?

64-bit


I'm having trouble recreating this. I'm running a Fedora 17 64-bit host and a Fedora 17 64-bit guest with domain XML that mirrors yours.

Here's the domain XML I'm using and the resulting QEMU command line:

Domain XML:   http://pastebin.com/DWa4RQ1Y
Command line: http://pastebin.com/2QTWsUhP

I'm running with QEMU commit 8db972cfa469b4e4afd9c65e54e796b83b5ce3a2 which is 1.2.0 with: (a) just the first patch applied, as well as with (b) all of this patch series applied.

Any thoughts on what could be different?

--
Regards,
Corey Bryant




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]