[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9haTSHdAcGBy4kLrhAs4UFSrMPFNsLC+X-Hf5_ud2_w19Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:51:49 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu,
eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org,
scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/12] ptrace,seccomp: Add PTRACE_SECCOMP support
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com> wrote:
> I don't think TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME is apropos here. That only triggers on
> returning to user mode, i.e. after syscall exit. But regardless of the
> exact implementation details, I don't think it will be prohibitive to add
> some means by which the fast-path can back off before actual syscall entry
> and go to the slow path for ptrace reporting.
>
> Since there is no strong reason to think it can't be reorganized that way
> later, I don't see any good rationale for constraining the seccomp-filter
> feature definition based on a plan to optimize the implementation in the
> future.
Sounds good to me. I'll move to ptrace_event and save the problem of
code organization for the future.
Thanks!
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.
