[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E09031.8050007@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:05:53 -0500
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 09/12] arch/x86: enable task isolation functionality
On 3/9/2016 3:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> My preference would be not to have to require all task-isolation users
>> >to also figure out all the complexities of creating BPF programs, so
>> >my intention is to have task isolation automatically generate a BPF
>> >program (just allowing prctl/exit/exit_group and failing everything
>> >else with SIGSYS). To support having it work this way, I open up
>> >the seccomp stuff a little so that kernel clients can effectively
>> >push/pop a BPF program into seccomp:
> That sounds like a great use case for the new libtaskisolation that
> someone is surely writing:)
Happily, task isolation is so simple an API that all that is needed is a prctl().
... Unless somehow a requirement to inflict a huge blob of eBPF into the kernel
just to use task isolation safely is added, of course :-)
--
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists