[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hYZ4yX76EaWgm2G8HuKgYPMxcxWRTHEazmxWNFL-mgY2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:56:04 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...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, eparis@...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, 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,
Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...omium.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, indan@....nu
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 01/16, Will Drewry wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, thanks, I forgot about compat tasks again. But this is easy, just
>> > we need regs_64_to_32().
>>
>> Yup - we could make the assumption that is_compat_task is always
>> 32-bit and the pt_regs is always 64-bit, then copy_and_truncate with
>> regs_64_to_32. Seems kinda wonky though :/
>
> much simpler/faster than what regset does to create the artificial
> user_regs_struct32.
True, I could collapse pt_regs to looks like the exported ABI pt_regs.
Then only compat processes would get the copy overhead. That could
be tidy and not break ABI. It would mean that I have to assume that
if unsigned long == 64-bit and is_compat_task(), then the task is
32-bit. Do you think if we ever add a crazy 128-bit "supercomputer"
arch that we will add a is_compat64_task() so that I could properly
collapse? :)
I like this idea!
>> > Doesn't matter. I think Indan has a better suggestion.
>>
>> I disagree, but perhaps I'm not fully understanding!
>
> I have much more chances to be wrong ;) I leave it to you and Indan.
We're being very verbose. I hope we can come to a good place! I took
a break from my response to reply here :)
thanks!
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