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> <CABqSeAT2-vNVUrXSWiGp=cXCvz8LbOrTBo1GbSZP2Z+CKdegJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABqSeAT2-vNVUrXSWiGp=cXCvz8LbOrTBo1GbSZP2Z+CKdegJA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:52:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CABqSeASc-3n_LXpYhb+PYkeAOsfSjih4qLMZ5t=q5yckv3w0nQ@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 7:31 PM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Bump, in case this question was missed. I don't really want to miss
the 5.10 merge window...

YiFei Zhu