linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 05/13] seccomp_filter: Document what seccomp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:07:05 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Chris Evans <scarybeasts@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	djm@...drot.org, segoon@...nwall.com, kees.cook@...onical.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/13] seccomp_filter: Document what seccomp_filter is
 and how it works.


* Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Will Drewry wrote:
> >>
> >> > Since it seems that there'll be consumers (openssh, vsftpd,
> >> > kvm/qemu, chromium, chromium os) and feedback quieted down, what
> >> > are the next steps to get this to a pull/no-pull decision points
> >> > (or at least some Ack's or Nack's)?  I know this patch series
> >> > crosses a number of maintainers, and I never know exactly what's
> >> > next when the feedback slows down.
> >>
> >> Are there any outstanding objections to this approach?  How do the
> >> tracing folk feel about it?
> >
> > I think i outlined my objections a couple of times and haven't seen
> > them addressed.
> 
> After our last discussion, I suggested changes which I then undertook
> and reposted.  Those changes have been posted for over two weeks.

Have you addressed my basic objection of why we should go for a more 
complex and less capable variant over a shared yet more capable 
facility:

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110526091518.GE26775@elte.hu

?

You are pushing the 'filter engine' approach currently, not the 
(much) more unified 'event filters' approach.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/