[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqSeAQDpJZdAD42myca=3BAGAJ9VyDjvEiXfcH+p3m4eo_vBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:08:00 -0500
From: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH seccomp 2/2] seccomp/cache: Cache filter results that
allow syscalls
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:58 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> > I do agree that an immutable bitmask is faster and easier to reason
> > about its correctness. However, I did not find the "code to statically
> > evaluate the filter for all syscall numbers" while reading seccomp.c.
> > Would you give me a pointer to that and I will see how to best make
> > use of it?
>
> I'm talking about the code you're adding in the other patch ("[RFC
> PATCH seccomp 1/2] seccomp/cache: Add "emulator" to check if filter is
> arg-dependent"). Sorry, that was a bit unclear.
I see, building an immutable accept bitmask when preparing and then
just use that when running it. I guess if the arch number issue is
resolved this should be more doable. Will do.
YiFei Zhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists