[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] seccomp_filter: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering
Quoting Will Drewry (
> My intent was to make them available for use by seccomp.c during state
> teardown/dup. I don't think there's benefit to exposing them outside
> of that. Would dropping the export, and adding an local seccomp.h
> with the shared functions in them resolve that more cleanly?

And add a clear comment explaining :)

> > Your code would have been correct if you could call kzalloc under
> > rcu_read_lock() (which you can on some kernel configurations but not
> > all). The issue is that you need to pull out that allocation from the
> > rcu_read_lock() because rcu_read_lock assumes you can't preempt, and
> > that allocation can schedule out. The access to the filters must be done
> > under rcu_read_lock(), other than that, you're fine.
> That makes sense. I think I'd prefer to not share those functions
> rather than guard the list just in case a future consumer of the
> interface comes along. Would that make sense to you? Since I don't
> see any other users right now other than seccomp.c, it might make
> sense to tackle the impact when an actual need arises.
> I'll go whichever way pointed on this, though.

Complicating the locking for nonexistent users doesn't seem like the
right way.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-28 20:57    [W:0.091 / U:1.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site