From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu (mx2.mail.elte.hu [157.181.151.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE338B6F08 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 22:27:24 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:26:46 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering Message-ID: <20110513122646.GA3924@elte.hu> References: <1304017638.18763.205.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1305169376-2363-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <20110512074850.GA9937@elte.hu> <20110512130104.GA2912@elte.hu> <20110513121034.GG21022@elte.hu> <1305289146.2466.8.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1305289146.2466.8.camel@twins> Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Heiko Carstens , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Paul Mackerras , Eric Paris , "H. Peter Anvin" , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , x86@kernel.org, James Morris , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kees.cook@canonical.com, "Serge E. Hallyn" , microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, Steven Rostedt , Martin Schwidefsky , Thomas Gleixner , Roland McGrath , Michal Marek , Michal Simek , Will Drewry , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , Paul Mundt , Tejun Heo , linux390@de.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , agl@chromium.org, "David S. Miller" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:10 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > err = event_vfs_getname(result); > > I really think we should not do this. Events like we have them should be > inactive, totally passive entities, only observe but not affect execution > (other than the bare minimal time delay introduced by observance). Well, this patchset already demonstrates that we can use a single event callback for a rather useful purpose. Either it makes sense to do, in which case we should share facilities as much as possible, or it makes no sense, in which case we should not merge it at all. > If you want another entity that is more active, please invent a new name for > it and create a new subsystem for them, now you could have these active > entities also have an (automatic) passive event side, but that's some detail. Why should we have two callbacks next to each other: event_vfs_getname(result); result = check_event_vfs_getname(result); if one could do it all? Thanks, Ingo