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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1602263422.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu> <c2077b8a86c6d82d611007d81ce81d32f718ec59.1602263422.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu>
 <202010091613.B671C86@keescook> <CABqSeARZWBQrLkzd3ozF16ghkADQqcN4rUoJS2MKkd=73g4nVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <202010121556.1110776B83@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202010121556.1110776B83@keescook>
From:   YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:31:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CABqSeAT2-vNVUrXSWiGp=cXCvz8LbOrTBo1GbSZP2Z+CKdegJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 seccomp 5/5] seccomp/cache: Report cache data through /proc/pid/seccomp_cache
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:57 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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 ..."

I think it would be weird if someone sees this help text and wonder...
"hmm does my architecture support seccomp action caching" and without
a clear pointer to how seccomp action cache works, goes and compiles
the kernel with this config option on for the purpose of knowing if
their arch supports it... Or, is it a common practice in the kernel to
leave dangling configs?

YiFei Zhu