[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hZ_Pe6RZ5buMTKcfWwCX35eBQ9dVz6fHZomDDN0AiTgPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:50:38 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
john.johansen@...onical.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@...hat.com, djm@...drot.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, segoon@...nwall.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, jmorris@...ei.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
luto@....edu, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
khilman@...com, borislav.petkov@....com, amwang@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
gregkh@...e.de, dhowells@...hat.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, olofj@...omium.org,
mhalcrow@...gle.com, dlaor@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:38 -0600, Will Drewry wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>> index cc7a4e9..0296871 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>
>> -typedef struct { int mode; } seccomp_t;
>> +struct seccomp_filter;
>> +/**
>> + * struct seccomp_struct - the state of a seccomp'ed process
>> + *
>> + * @mode:
>> + * if this is 0, seccomp is not in use.
>> + * is 1, the process is under standard seccomp rules.
>> + * is 2, the process is only allowed to make system calls where
>> + * associated filters evaluate successfully.
>> + * @filter: Metadata for filter if using CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER.
>> + * @filter must only be accessed from the context of current as there
>> + * is no guard.
>> + */
>> +typedef struct seccomp_struct {
>> + int mode;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
>> + struct seccomp_filter *filter;
>> +#endif
>> +} seccomp_t;
>>
>> extern void __secure_computing(int);
>> static inline void secure_computing(int this_syscall)
>
> Can we get rid of all of the typedef stuff? I know you didn't add it
> but now seems like a good time to follow typical kernel semantics if you
> have to re-rev for some other reason.
Yup - I was hoping to do that separately since it touches extra files.
I'll make a prereq patch that enacts the change (so it can be picked
up even if the seccomp-bpf is less successful).
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