Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] seccomp_filter: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:07:18 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:54 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Will Drewry (wad@chromium.org): > > 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 :)
Yes that always helps.
> > > > 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.
I agree.
-- Steve
| |