Re: [PATCH v3 seccomp 1/5] x86: Enable seccomp architecture tracking

[Jann Horn]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:53 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:33:15PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:21 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:19:12AM -0500, YiFei Zhu wrote:
> > > > From: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Provide seccomp internals with the details to calculate which syscall
> > > > table the running kernel is expecting to deal with. This allows for
> > > > efficient architecture pinning and paves the way for constant-action
> > > > bitmaps.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > [YiFei: Removed x32, added macro for nr_syscalls]
> > > > Signed-off-by: YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [...]
> > > But otherwise, yes, looks good to me. For this patch, I think the S-o-b chain is probably more
> > > accurately captured as:
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Co-developed-by: YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > (Technically, https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
> > says that "every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
> > Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author" (and has an example of how
> > that should look).)
>
> Right, but it is not needed for the commit author (here, the From:),
> the second example given in the docs shows this:

Aah, right. Nevermind, sorry for the noise.