[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181030163926.GC7643@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:39:26 +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, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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().
Ah, please ignore, emulate_vsyscall() does secure_computing(NULL).
Btw. why __seccomp_filter() doesn't return a boolean?
Or at least, why can't case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE) simply do
return __seccomp_filter(this_syscall, NULL, true);
?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists