[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:27:23 +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 <>, 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" <>,, linux-arm-kernel <>,,,,,, Linus Torvalds <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <1305289146.2466.8.camel@twins> <> <1305290370.2466.14.camel@twins> <1305290612.2466.17.camel@twins> <> <1305292132.2466.26.camel@twins> <> <1305294935.2466.64.camel@twins> <>
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 16:57 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> this is a security mechanism

Who says? and why would you want to unify two separate concepts only to
them limit it to security that just doesn't make sense.

Either you provide a full on replacement for notifier chain like things
or you don't, only extending trace events in this fashion for security
is like way weird.

Plus see the arguments Eric made about stacking stuff, not only security
schemes will have those problems.

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