[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250128154424.GB24845@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:44:25 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Cc: kees@...nel.org, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, olsajiri@...il.com, cyphar@...har.com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, rafi@....io, shmulik.ladkani@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without
filtering
can't review, I know nothing about seccomp_cache, but
On 01/28, Eyal Birger wrote:
>
> +static bool seccomp_is_const_allow(struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog,
> + struct seccomp_data *sd)
> +{
> +#ifdef __NR_uretprobe
> + if (sd->nr == __NR_uretprobe
> +#ifdef SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT
> + && sd->arch != SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT
> +#endif
it seems you can check
&& sd->arch == SECCOMP_ARCH_NATIVE
and avoid #ifdef SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists