[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filt

To: Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering
From: Ingo Molnar <>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:26:46 +0200
Cc: James Morris <>, Will Drewry <>,, Steven Rostedt <>, Frederic Weisbecker <>, Eric Paris <>,,, "Serge E. Hallyn" <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Andrew Morton <>, Tejun Heo <>, Michal Marek <>, Oleg Nesterov <>, Roland McGrath <>, Jiri Slaby <>, David Howells <>, Russell King <>, Michal Simek <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>, Paul Mackerras <>, Martin Schwidefsky <>, Heiko Carstens <>,, Paul Mundt <>, "David S. Miller" <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,,,,,,,, Linus Torvalds <>
In-reply-to: <1305289146.2466.8.camel@twins>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1305289146.2466.8.camel@twins>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
* Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:10 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >         err = event_vfs_getname(result);
> I really think we should not do this. Events like we have them should be 
> inactive, totally passive entities, only observe but not affect execution 
> (other than the bare minimal time delay introduced by observance).

Well, this patchset already demonstrates that we can use a single event 
callback for a rather useful purpose.

Either it makes sense to do, in which case we should share facilities as much 
as possible, or it makes no sense, in which case we should not merge it at all.

> If you want another entity that is more active, please invent a new name for 
> it and create a new subsystem for them, now you could have these active 
> entities also have an (automatic) passive event side, but that's some detail.

Why should we have two callbacks next to each other:

        result = check_event_vfs_getname(result);

if one could do it all?



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