[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWaQZc124=6r4h+fTAY4H4LzWGFw=MB7KY5TBtB0jx9hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:28:32 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,seccomp: Add a seccomp fastpath
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 03:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2014 02:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 13ns is with the simplest nonempty filter. I hope that empty filters
>>>> don't work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't they?
>>
>> Is it permissible to fall off the end of a BPF program? I'm getting
>> EINVAL trying to install an actual empty filter. The filter I tested
>> with was:
>>
>
> What I meant was that there has to be a well-defined behavior for the
> program falling off the end anyway, and that that should be preserved.
>
> I guess it is possible to require that all code paths must provably
> reach a termination point.
>
Dunno. I haven't ever touched any of the actual BPF code. This whole
patchset only changes the code that invokes the BPF evaluator.
--Andy
--
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