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>
 <CABqSeASc-3n_LXpYhb+PYkeAOsfSjih4qLMZ5t=q5yckv3w0nQ@mail.gmail.com> <202010221520.44C5A7833E@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202010221520.44C5A7833E@keescook>
From:   YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:40:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CABqSeAT4L65_uS=45uxPZALKaDSDocMviMginLOV2N0h-e1AzA@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 Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> I've been going back and forth on this, and I think what I've settled
> on is I'd like to avoid new CONFIG dependencies just for this feature.
> Instead, how about we just fill in SECCOMP_NATIVE and SECCOMP_COMPAT
> for all the HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER architectures, and then the
> cache reporting can be cleanly tied to CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER? It
> should be relatively simple to extract those details and make
> SECCOMP_ARCH_{NATIVE,COMPAT}_NAME part of the per-arch enabling patches?

Hmm. So I could enable the cache logic to every architecture (one
patch per arch) that does not have the sparse syscall numbers, and
then have the proc reporting after the arch patches? I could do that.
I don't have test machines to run anything other than x86_64 or ia32,
so they will need a closer look by people more familiar with those
arches.

> I'd still like to get more specific workload performance numbers too.
> The microbenchmark is nice, but getting things like build times under
> docker's default seccomp filter, etc would be lovely. I've almost gotten
> there, but my benchmarks are still really noisy and CPU isolation
> continues to frustrate me. :)

Ok, let me know if I can help.

YiFei Zhu