[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150910001315.GF26679@smitten>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:13:15 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:44:24PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Tycho Andersen
> <tycho.andersen@...onical.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a thought,
> >
> > The set I'm currently proposing effectively separates the ref-counting
> > of the struct seccomp_filter from the struct bpf_prog (by necessity,
> > since we're referring to filters from fds). What if we went a little
> > futher, and made a copy of each seccomp_filter on fork(), keeping it
> > pointed at the same bpf_prog but adding some metadata about how it was
> > inherited (tsk->seccomp.filter->inheritence_count++ perhaps). This
> > would still require this change:
>
> Won't that break the tsync mechanism?
We'll need the change I posted (is_ancestor comparing the underlying
bpf_prog instead of the seccomp_filter), but then I think it'll work.
I guess we'll need to do some more bookkeeping when we install filters
via TSYNC since each thread would need its own seccomp_filter, and
we'd also have to decide whether a filter installed via TSYNC was
inherited or not.
Am I missing something?
Tycho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists