From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] seccomp: add a way to attach a filter via eBPF fd Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:14:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20150909151402.GA3429@Alexeis-MBP-2.westell.com> References: <1441382664-17437-1-git-send-email-tycho.andersen@canonical.com> <1441382664-17437-6-git-send-email-tycho.andersen@canonical.com> <55EA95FE.7000006@gmail.com> <20150908134044.GV26679@smitten> <20150909144724.GZ26679@smitten> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150909144724.GZ26679@smitten> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tycho Andersen Cc: Kees Cook , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Linux API , Alexei Starovoitov , Will Drewry , Oleg Nesterov , Andy Lutomirski , Pavel Emelyanov , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Daniel Borkmann , LKML , Network Development List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:47:24AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:07:03PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > Yeah, bpf's union looks good. Let's add a "command" flag, though: > > > > seccomp(SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER_EBPF, int cmd, union, size); > > > > And this cmd could be ADD_FD or something? > > > > How's that look? > > I think we can drop the size (using the same strategy as bpf() and > checking for zeroes at the end), and keep the same signature for > seccomp(); so: > > seccomp(SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER_EBPF, SECCOMP_ADD_BPF_FD, &union) > > Yes, I'll use this in the next version. actually bpf() has size as the last argument: SYSCALL_DEFINE3(bpf, int, cmd, union bpf_attr __user *, uattr, unsigned int, size) perf_event_open() doesn't and size is embedded as one of the fields. Both approaches are equivally powerfull from extensitiblity point of view. My preference was to keep size as an explicit argument.