linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole

To: Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <markus@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
From: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 21:23:57 -0700
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
In-reply-to: <904b25810905061521v62b3ddd6l14deb614d203385a@mail.gmail.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20090228030413.5B915FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271948570.3111@localhost.localdomain> <20090228072554.CFEA6FC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902280916470.3111@localhost.localdomain> <904b25810905061146ged374f2se0afd24e9e3c1f06@mail.gmail.com> <20090506212913.GC4861@elte.hu> <904b25810905061446m73c42040nfff47c9b8950bcfa@mail.gmail.com> <20090506215450.GA9537@elte.hu> <904b25810905061508n6d9cb8dbg71de5b1e0332ede7@mail.gmail.com> <20090506221319.GA11493@elte.hu> <904b25810905061521v62b3ddd6l14deb614d203385a@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:21 -0700, Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 15:13, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > doing a (per arch) bitmap of harmless syscalls and replacing the
> > mode1_syscalls[] check with that in kernel/seccomp.c would be a
> > pretty reasonable extension. (.config controllable perhaps, for
> > old-style-seccomp)
> >
> > It would probably be faster than the current loop over
> > mode1_syscalls[] as well.
> 
> This would be a great option to improve performance of our sandbox. I
> can detect the availability of the new kernel API dynamically, and
> then not intercept the bulk of the system calls. This would allow the
> sandbox to work both with existing and with newer kernels.
> 
> We'll post a kernel patch for discussion in the next few days,
> 

I suspect the correct thing to do would be to leave seccomp mode 1 alone
and introduce a mode 2 with a less restricted set of system calls -- the
interface was designed to be extended in this way, after all.

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>