Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,seccomp: Add a seccomp fastpath

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2014 03:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2014 02:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 13ns is with the simplest nonempty filter.  I hope that empty filters
>>>>> don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why wouldn't they?
>>>
>>> Is it permissible to fall off the end of a BPF program?  I'm getting
>>> EINVAL trying to install an actual empty filter.  The filter I tested
>>> with was:
>>>
>>
>> What I meant was that there has to be a well-defined behavior for the
>> program falling off the end anyway, and that that should be preserved.
>>
>> I guess it is possible to require that all code paths must provably
>> reach a termination point.
>>
>
> Dunno.  I haven't ever touched any of the actual BPF code.  This whole
> patchset only changes the code that invokes the BPF evaluator.

Yes, this is how BPF works: runs to the end or exit early. With
seccomp BPF specifically, the return value defaults to kill the
process. If a filter was missing (NULL), or empty, or didn't
explicitly return with a new value, the default (kill) should be
taken.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/