[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: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:43:22 +0200
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <>, Will Drewry <>, Steven Rostedt <>, Frederic Weisbecker <>, James Morris <>,, 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" <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,, linux-arm-kernel <>,,,,,, Linus Torvalds <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1306254027.18455.47.camel@twins> <> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1105242239230.3078@ionos> <>
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > We do _NOT_ make any decision based on the trace point so what's the
> > "pre-existing" active role in the syscall entry code?
> The seccomp code we are discussing in this thread. 

That isn't pre-existing, that's proposed.

But face it, you can argue until you're blue in the face, but both tglx
and I will NAK any and all patches that extend perf/ftrace beyond the
passive observing role.

Your arguments appear to be as non-persuasive to us as ours are to you,
so please drop this endeavor and let the security folks sort it on their
own and let's get back to doing useful work. 

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