[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110428122334.D197.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:21:45 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kees.cook@...onical.com, eparis@...hat.com, agl@...omium.org,
mingo@...e.hu, jmorris@...ei.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] seccomp_filter: add process state reporting
> Adds seccomp and seccomp_filter status reporting to proc.
> /proc/<pid>/status will include a Seccomp field, and
> /proc/<pid>/seccomp_filter will provide read-only access
> to the current filter and bitmask set for seccomp_filters.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
> ---
> fs/proc/array.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> fs/proc/base.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
I'm not againt seccomp_filter. but I dislike to increase /proc/<pid>/status mess.
1) it's read from a lot of applications, I don't want to worry about performance
thing. 2) 99.99% user never use seccomp. this field is useless for them.
Can't you make individual seccomp specific file?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists