Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:57:36 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@illinois.edu>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@cs.cmu.edu>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Hubertus Franke <frankeh@us.ibm.com>,
        Jack Chen <jianyan2@illinois.edu>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@illinois.edu>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@illinois.edu>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@ibm.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@redhat.com>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 seccomp 5/5] seccomp/cache: Report cache data through
 /proc/pid/seccomp_cache
Message-ID: <202010121556.1110776B83@keescook>
References: <cover.1602263422.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu>
 <c2077b8a86c6d82d611007d81ce81d32f718ec59.1602263422.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu>
 <202010091613.B671C86@keescook>
 <CABqSeARZWBQrLkzd3ozF16ghkADQqcN4rUoJS2MKkd=73g4nVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABqSeARZWBQrLkzd3ozF16ghkADQqcN4rUoJS2MKkd=73g4nVA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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@chromium.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