linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] seccomp filter JIT

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, 26 Apr 2013 14:38:34 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
CC:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>,
	Mircea Gherzan <mgherzan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] seccomp filter JIT

On 04/26/2013 02:31 PM, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> I think BPF JIT for seccomp on ARM recently got applied to -mm tree
>> if I'm not mistaken. It was from Nicolas Schichan (cc):
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/233416/
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
> For the ARM part, looks like Nicolas's patch requires to implement two
> wrappers for each arch:
>
>    void seccomp_jit_compile(struct seccomp_filter *fp);
>    void seccomp_jit_free(struct seccomp_filter *fp);
>
> The implementation of these wrappers is almost identical to:
>
>    void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp);
>    void bpf_jit_free(struct sk_filter *fp);
>
> While this patch uses a unified interface for both packet & seccomp filters.
>
>    bpf_func_t bpf_jit_compile(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen);
>    void bpf_jit_free(bpf_func_t bpf_func);

A unified interface seems more clean, imho.

> Shouldn't be hard to merge though.
--
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/