From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com ([209.85.214.195]:39819 "EHLO mail-pl1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729276AbfIWXvg (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:51:36 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id s17so54178plp.6 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:51:32 -0700 From: Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: remove unused arg from secure_computing() Message-ID: <201909231650.1CCAFBA6@keescook> References: <20190920131907.6886-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> <20190923094916.GB15355@zn.tnic> <20190923193446.GL15355@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190923193446.GL15355@zn.tnic> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Christian Brauner , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Will Drewry , Oleg Nesterov , linux-arm-kernel , Parisc List , linux-s390 , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, X86 ML On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 09:34:46PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41:59AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:49 AM Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 03:19:09PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > While touching seccomp code I realized that the struct seccomp_data > > > > argument to secure_computing() seems to be unused by all current > > > > callers. So let's remove it unless there is some subtlety I missed. > > > > Note, I only tested this on x86. > > > > > > What was amluto thinking in > > > > > > 2f275de5d1ed ("seccomp: Add a seccomp_data parameter secure_computing()") > > > > IIRC there was a period of time in which x86 used secure_computing() > > for normal syscalls, and it was a good deal faster to have the arch > > code supply seccomp_data. x86 no longer works like this, and syscalls > > aren't fast anymore ayway :( > > Uhuh, thanks Andy. > > Christian, pls add that piece of history to the commit message. Yeah, this is just left-over from the "two phase" seccomp optimization that was removed a while back. I'll take this clean up into the seccomp tree. Thanks! -- Kees Cook