[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202010121556.1110776B83@keescook>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:57:36 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
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>,
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 5/5] seccomp/cache: Report cache data through
/proc/pid/seccomp_cache
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 08:26:16AM -0500, YiFei Zhu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 6:14 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_CACHE isn't used any more. I think this was left over
> > from before.
>
> Oh, I was meant to add this to the dependencies of
> SECCOMP_CACHE_DEBUG. Is this something that would make sense?
I think it's fine to just have this "dangle" with a help text update of
"if seccomp action caching is supported by the architecture, provide the
/proc/$pid ..."
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists