Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:09:16 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@docker.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, criu@openvz.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace, seccomp: add support for retrieving seccomp flags
Message-ID: <20170919210916.6r5janszdtx7eoes@smitten>
References: <20170919174743.19814-1-tycho@docker.com>
 <CAGXu5j+0neV5uGm3qNmFSYodWoC3VsMEjP7JkFd5B_ksNFAvkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+0neV5uGm3qNmFSYodWoC3VsMEjP7JkFd5B_ksNFAvkg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1066
Lines: 27

Hi Kees,

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:08:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@docker.com> wrote:
> > With the new SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, we need to be able to extract these
> > flags for checkpoint restore, since they describe the state of a filter.
> >
> > So, let's add PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FLAGS, similar to ..._GET_FILTER, which
> > returns the flags of the nth filter.
> 
> Can you split this up into factoring out the nth helper, and then
> adding the new get?
> 
> For naming, perhaps "GET_FILTER_FLAGS" instead of "GET_FLAGS" since
> there may be seccomp flags in the future, etc.

Sure, I'll do both of these.

> Is there any sane way to add the flags to the existing GET_FILTER?

I looked at this, and I don't think so. Unfortunately, we didn't use
any structure for the output, it's just the raw bytes of the filter
with the length used as the return value. I suppose we could append
the flags after the bytes of the filter, but that seems... very ugly
:). Let me know if you want to go that route.

Tycho