|
Message-ID: <4F3DB9E8.7040406@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:22:32 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> CC: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, keescook@...omium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF On 02/16/2012 06:16 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > Is there really no syscall that cares about endianness? > > Even if it ends up working, forcing syscall arguments to have a > particular endianness seems like a bad decision, especially if anyone > ever wants to make a 64-bit BPF implementation. (Or if any > architecture adds 128-bit syscall arguments to a future syscall > namespace or whatever it's called. x86-64 has 128-bit xmm > registers...) > Not to mention that the reshuffling code will add totally unnecessary cost to the normal operation. Either way, Indan has it backwards ... it *is* one field, the fact that two operations is needed to access it is a function of the underlying byte code, and even if the byte code can't support it, a JIT could merge adjacent operations if 64-bit operations are possible -- or we could (and arguably should) add 64-bit opcodes in the future for efficiency. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.