From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] seccomp filter JIT
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:38:34 +0200
Message-ID: <517A754A.8030902@redhat.com>
References: <1366962706-24204-1-git-send-email-xi.wang@gmail.com> <20130426112539.GA3736@osiris> <517A6915.2020208@redhat.com> <CAKU6vybdnpoM-szTrJRDVM2sqNPvAe3Tszg+tCuziKSOEXjJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@freebox.fr>,
	Mircea Gherzan <mgherzan@gmail.com>
To: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKU6vybdnpoM-szTrJRDVM2sqNPvAe3Tszg+tCuziKSOEXjJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 04/26/2013 02:31 PM, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I think BPF JIT for seccomp on ARM recently got applied to -mm tree
>> if I'm not mistaken. It was from Nicolas Schichan (cc):
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/233416/
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
> For the ARM part, looks like Nicolas's patch requires to implement two
> wrappers for each arch:
>
>    void seccomp_jit_compile(struct seccomp_filter *fp);
>    void seccomp_jit_free(struct seccomp_filter *fp);
>
> The implementation of these wrappers is almost identical to:
>
>    void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp);
>    void bpf_jit_free(struct sk_filter *fp);
>
> While this patch uses a unified interface for both packet & seccomp filters.
>
>    bpf_func_t bpf_jit_compile(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen);
>    void bpf_jit_free(bpf_func_t bpf_func);

A unified interface seems more clean, imho.

> Shouldn't be hard to merge though.