From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3680D3A7F7C; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781563115; cv=none; b=qnbnWo4758pU+uPcYnWnrtjMqnXBEZAAP65ygACl2hQqeHhIyxtJEoX1IpBYcRc9oRmwYK/BbOeb1uVDvxURjjrgLyUhJKArW8cRRLs66FrOhJ1BdZ/W/D4rvjlwI5abPJImIgxX7LexpYvLk+98V3azJsh4NsewX5WVfJ/gDAc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781563115; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DFiobPSyQnoHucHgf6MiVtg8PJPuq6txzSTExVUUuWg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=omf4nzEFG4SyrgiAv3ShG9kKh7n6D3SZQpBN/jCsgI6bhnGIG3tRRJ08F5wPzuokOX80kDBQNBOHvuYGMfEWvbKphqNf65OdI+7JmRH+U8WIJJPRiL3ijujIsI5XuFz1QXicJPz1FfY9FxGyPMZ7QVA6IE4jjblKtuGCSRwplQk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=GFMCllS6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="GFMCllS6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D772C1F000E9; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:38:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781563113; bh=s19auisx0OTxl3Mwb/7oihK9l6ttYY312/kiRjwUppA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=GFMCllS66TyLC6bQx5hGxJJIsyh9aoC+pdYyoga9uD6KH5Ubidkb/KdgbRR1tx2VJ 9lf1V4FRk4thWHOyZiqojpPL5/111B1LBQs4Wc5mA+Tbnza7wk5GH3ivoId7w7sjPh 758ZS5h4Izq+ucC2A2Dof+ibBnZAFI8gkptx6mE/yO0aaFpc8GvHXojzQdOVQYE9c1 +3sgz5KZwy5AAOSnWu/co3Xp32sM55q/fPAlRv/R01tvPQ3qmUdhTXtiQe0XsRNxn5 4L2FnvOhpbGKQZZhXXPXdHjN1sEnCE4F1Pfe0qMj+u2JmaggvL1l0NAqxYHaOA3XFR Cxnxth46AnqTQ== Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 15:38:33 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Jamie Hill-Daniel Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Will Drewry , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Jamie Hill-Daniel Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/2] seccomp: Allow using `SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT` with `SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER` Message-ID: <202606151535.F32ACD538@keescook> References: <20260526-seccomp-combined-v1-0-304b1cc3ad24@hill-daniel.co.uk> <202606122110.28245E2D@keescook> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 05:23:53PM +0100, Jamie Hill-Daniel wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 5:14 AM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 04:32:14PM +0100, Jamie Hill-Daniel wrote: > > > Link: https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/42082 > > > > This doesn't show any particular application, just a demo program. > > > > I'd *really* prefer to only add complexity to seccomp if it is > > absolutely needed. > > When I filed the original issue it was attempting a minimised > reproduction; I was trying to run some legacy binary in a container > that I unfortunately don't have the context for any more. > I've submitted another series that should hopefully address some of > the concerns raised here, including complexity. Right, I think I'd prefer the legacy binary be adjusted instead. And not adding complexity to seccomp given the issue isn't actually a problem any more. :) -- Kees Cook