Re: Seccomp support for linux-m68k

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2020-03-21T22:48:08Z

On 3/21/20 11:18 PM, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Am 21.03.2020 um 11:59 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
>> On 3/20/20 11:49 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
>>> I suspect (without evidence) that many m68k systems are actually virtual
>>> machines. And the need for container hosting on m68k seems negligible.
>>
>> It isn't about security. It's about being able to build more packages
>> as some packages have started to make libseccomp support mandatory.
>
> Is there a good technical reason for this decision? I suppose most of these packages are not about VM or container hosting?

I don't know but I don't think I have a good case arguing against that
as multiple upstream projects are using it.

> What about checking at runtime for availability of the library, and disabling VM related functionality if it wasn't possible to load?
>
> In the event that kernel support can't be avoided: I suppose there a git commit for Helge's hppa changes that would help gauge the effort required for implementing such support?

It doesn't seem to be much that's necessary:

> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c90f06943e05519a87140dc407cf589c220aeedf

> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=910cd32e552ea09caa89cdbe328e468979b030dd

Other architectures are similarly minimal:

> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8855d608c145c1ca0e26f4da00741080bb49d80d

> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d218af78492a36a4ae607c08fedfb59258440314

So, I think it's feasible to add minimal seccomp support for m68k.

PS: I'm going to set up the Amiga 500 with the xsurf500 soonish. Got all hardware
that I need now.

Adrian

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913