[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqSeAS0WdkLHGMg3TRKkzsUE=JJYwY4iuBgYpdp-kLd9ASOfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:32:26 -0500
From: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 seccomp 3/5] x86: Enable seccomp architecture tracking
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:25 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> Is the idea that any syscall that's out of range for this (e.g. all of
> the x32 syscalls) is unoptimized? I'm okay with this, but I think it
> could use a comment.
Yes, any syscall number that is out of range is unoptimized. Where do
you think I should put a comment? seccomp_cache_check_allow_bitmap
above `if (unlikely(syscall_nr < 0 || syscall_nr >= bitmap_size))`,
with something like "any syscall number out of range is unoptimized"?
YiFei Zhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists