[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202501271117.E00B5250@keescook>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:17:52 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] seccomp: kill the dead code in the
!CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER version of __secure_computing()
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:30:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> How about
>
> __secure_computing()
> {
> return secure_computing_strict(syscall_get_nr(...));
> }
>
> in the "#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER" section near
> secure_computing_strict() in kernel/seccomp.c ?
Yeah, that should be good.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists