[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181030162752.GB7643@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:27:52 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@....ntt.co.jp>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> @@ -828,6 +823,11 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> */
> rmb();
>
> + if (!sd) {
> + populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local);
> + sd = &sd_local;
> + }
> +
To me it would be more clean to remove the "if (!sd)" check, case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE)
in __seccomp_filter() can simply do populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local) unconditionally
and pass &sd_local to __seccomp_filter().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists