lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/6] seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC
From
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Would you be willing to carry this series? Andy Lutomirski appears
>>>> happy with it now. (Thanks again for all the feedback Andy!) If so, it
>>>> has a relatively small merge conflict with the bpf changes living in
>>>> net-next. Would you prefer I rebase against net-next, let sfr handle
>>>> it, get carried in net-next, or some other option?
>>>
>>> Well, I'm still not entirely convinced that we want to have this much
>>> multiplexing in a prctl, and I'm still a bit unconvinced that the code
>>
>> I don't want to get caught without interface argument flexibility
>> again, so that's why the prctl interface is being set up that way.
>
> I was thinking that a syscall might be a lot prettier. It may pay to
> cc linux-api, too.
>
> I'll offer you a deal: if you try to come up with a nice, clean
> syscall, I'll try to write a fast(er) path for x86_64 to reduce
> overhead. I bet I can save 90-100ns per syscall. :)

Now added to the Cc.

Which path do you mean to improve? Neither the prctl nor a syscall for
this would need to be fast at all.

I don't want to go in circles on this. I've been there before on my
VFS link hardening series, and my module restriction series. I would
like consensus from more than just one person. :)

I'd like to hear from other folks on this (akpm?). My instinct is to
continue using prctl since that is already where mediation for seccomp
happens. I don't see why prctl vs a new syscall makes a difference
here, frankly.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-03 01:41    [W:0.078 / U:1.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site