[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141003204443.GP10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 22:44:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,seccomp,prctl: Remove PR_TSC_SIGSEGV and seccomp TSC
filtering
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 01:27:52PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >
> > We could make the rule be that RDPMC is enabled if a perf event is
> > mmapped or TIF_SECCOMP is clear, but I'd prefer to be convinced that
> > there's an actual performance issue first. Ideally we can get this
> > all working with no API or ABI change at all.
>
> No, we can't use that rule. But we could say that RDPMC is enabled if
> a perf event is mmapped and no thread in the mm uses seccomp. I'll
> grumble a little bit about adding yet another piece of seccomp state.
Well, we could simply disable the RDPMC for everything TIF_SECCOMP.
Should be fairly straight fwd.
--
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