From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ebpf: add a seccomp program type Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:09:43 +0200 Message-ID: <55F059C7.9070105@iogearbox.net> References: <1441382664-17437-1-git-send-email-tycho.andersen@canonical.com> <1441382664-17437-2-git-send-email-tycho.andersen@canonical.com> <20150904210615.GR26679@smitten> <20150909155035.GA26679@smitten> <20150909160744.GA3526@Alexeis-MBP-2.westell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kees Cook , Alexei Starovoitov , Will Drewry , Oleg Nesterov , Andy Lutomirski , Pavel Emelyanov , "Serge E. Hallyn" , LKML , Network Development To: Alexei Starovoitov , Tycho Andersen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150909160744.GA3526@Alexeis-MBP-2.westell.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 09/09/2015 06:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: [...] >> Thoughts? > > Please do not add any per-instruction hacks. None of them are > necessary. Classic had to do extra ugly checks in seccomp only > because verifier wasn't flexible enough. > If you don't want to see any BPF_CALL in seccomp, just have > empty get_func_proto() callback for BPF_PROG_TYPE_SECCOMP > and verifier will reject all calls. > Currently we have only two non-generic instrucitons > LD_ABS and LD_IND that are avaialable for sockets/TC only, > because these are legacy instructions and we had to make > exceptions for them. Yep, +1.