On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 10:04:23AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > This is the final bit needed to support seccomp filters created via the bpf > syscall. > > One concern with this patch is exactly what the interface should look like > for users, since seccomp()'s second argument is a pointer, we could ask > people to pass a pointer to the fd, but implies we might write to it which > seems impolite. Right now we cast the pointer (and force the user to cast > it), which generates ugly warnings. I'm not sure what the right answer is > here.
I think passing &fd is fine. setsockopt does similar things. > -#define SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_MASK (SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC) > +#define SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_MASK (\ > + SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC | SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_EBPF) > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h > index 0f238a4..c29a423 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > > /* Valid flags for SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER */ > #define SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC 1 > +#define SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_EBPF (1 << 1) ... > - prepared = seccomp_prepare_user_filter(filter); > + if (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_EBPF) > + prepared = seccomp_prepare_ebpf(filter); > + else > + prepared = seccomp_prepare_user_filter(filter); > + I think instead of flag for existing SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER command, it would have been cleaner to add new command SECCOMP_SET_MODE_BPF and pass &fd to it. Both kernel implementation and user side would look better ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
