Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754581Ab2BPWHE (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:07:04 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:35078 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753981Ab2BPWHA (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:07:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3D7DD4.6070103@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:06:12 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Drewry CC: Markus Gutschke , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mcgrathr@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, eparis@redhat.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, indan@nul.nu, pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF References: <1329422549-16407-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <1329422549-16407-3-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <4F3D61CB.2000301@zytor.com> <4F3D7250.6040504@zytor.com> <4F3D766E.7040205@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1514 Lines: 37 On 02/16/2012 01:51 PM, Will Drewry wrote: >> >> Put the bloody bit in there and let the pattern program make that decision. > > Easy enough to add a bit for the mode: 32-bit or 64-bit. It seemed > like a waste of cycles for every 32-bit program or every 64-bit > program to check to see that its calling convention hadn't changed, > but it does take away a valid decision the pattern program should be > making. > > I'll add a flag for 32bit/64bit while cleaning up seccomp_data. I > think that will properly encapsulate the is_compat_task() behavior in > a way that is stable for compat and non-compat tasks to use. If > there's a more obvious way, I'm all ears. > is_compat_task() is not going to be the right thing for x86 going forward, as we're introducing the x32 ABI (which uses the normal x86-64 entry point, but with different eax numbers, and bit 30 set.) The actual state is the TS_COMPAT flag in the thread_info structure, which currently matches is_compat_task(), but perhaps we should add a new helper function syscall_namespace() or something like that... Either that or we can just use another bit in the syscall number field... -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/