[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=GA1iFFOirGaG3Th_qOexnAcphOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 03:08:23 -0700
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kees.cook@...onical.com,
eparis@...hat.com, agl@...omium.org, mingo@...e.hu,
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>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] seccomp_filter: add process state reporting
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Will Drewry wrote:
>
>> > Can't you make individual seccomp specific file?
>>
>> Definitely. Would it make sense to have /proc/<pid>/seccomp and
>> /proc/<pid>/seccomp_filter?
>
> Do you need the separate seccomp file vs. just checking what's in
> seccomp_filter ?
Initially, I would've said yes, because I had modeled it such that any
entries in /proc/<pid>/seccomp_filter could be fed right back into as
filters. However, as I've reworked it from Frederic and other's
feedback, I don't need to keep the separation - all the relevant info
can just be in seccomp_filter and no secondary file will be useful.
Thanks for pointing it out! I'm tracking down what is, no doubt, a
dumb bug (still), but once I sort it, I'll repost the series with this
change included.
Cheers!
will
--
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