Re: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order?

[Will Drewry]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The proposed patch seems to duplicate the functionality in
> <asm/syscall.h>.  Those macros also try to do the right thing in the
> presence of compat.

That was my first thought too, so I ran a few simple tests.  gcc isn't
smart enough to not add ~344 bytes of code to get the number and
arguments for the x86/kernel/ptrace.c case I included (in the
naive-est of integrations).  But I don't know that it justifies the
extra patchwork or enforcing shared code across arches.

Regardless, the syscall entry + trace code can use some attention
across the architectures. I don't know that
one-more-layer-of-abstraction is the right answer (rather than just
fixing the code). The biggest benefit would be having one-true
syscall_trace_entry slow path. That said, the fast paths will be
forever divergent so the opportunity for bugs like the ones pointed
out will still be there.

cheers!
will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/