Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, February 17, 2012 02:33, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/16/2012 04:48 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote:
>>> On Thu, February 16, 2012 22:17, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> I would go for something like:
>>>
>>> struct seccomp_data {
>>>      int nr;
>>>      __u32 arg_low[6];
>>>      __u32 arg_high[6];
>>>      __u32 instruction_pointer_low;
>>>      __u32 instruction_pointer_high;
>>>      __u32 __reserved[3];
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> Uh, that is the absolutely WORST way to do it - not only are you
>> creating two fields, they're not even adjacent.
>
> You want:
>
> struct seccomp_data {
>        int nr;
>        __u32 __reserved[3];
>        __u64 arg[6];
>        __u64 instruction_pointer;
> };
>
> And I agree it looks a lot nicer.
>
> You can pretend a 64-bit arg will be one field, but it won't be. It will
> be always two fields no matter what. Making them adjacent is only good
> because seccomp_data won't have to change if 64-bit support is ever added
> to BPF.
>
> It looks nicer, but it only makes it harder to know the right offset for
> the fields for the 32-bit only BPF programs. You can try to hide reality,
> but that won't change it.
>
>>> (Not sure what use the IP is because that doesn't tell anything about how
>>> the system call instruction was reached.)
>>>
>>> The only way to avoid splitting args is to add 64-bit support to BPF.
>>> That is probably the best way forwards, but would require breaking the
>>> BPF ABI by either adding a 64-bit version directly or adding extra
>>> instructions.
>>
>> Or the compiler or whatever generates the BPF code just is going to have
>> to generate two instructions -- just like we always have to handle
>> [u]int64_t on 32-bit platforms.  There is no difference here.
>
> Except that if you don't hide the platform differences your compiler
> or whatever needs to generate different instructions depending on the
> endianess, while it could always generate the same instructions instead.
>
> My impression is that you want to push all extra complexity into the
> compiler or whatever instead of making the ABI cross-platform, because
> it looks nicer. I don't care that much, but I think you're just pushing
> the ugliness around instead of getting rid of it.

Is there really no syscall that cares about endianness?

Even if it ends up working, forcing syscall arguments to have a
particular endianness seems like a bad decision, especially if anyone
ever wants to make a 64-bit BPF implementation.  (Or if any
architecture adds 128-bit syscall arguments to a future syscall
namespace or whatever it's called.  x86-64 has 128-bit xmm
registers...)

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


[Other Archives]     [Linux Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Driver Development]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Testers]     [Linux SH]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Kbuild]     [Linux Tape]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Kernel Janitors]     [Linux Kernel Packagers]     [Linux Doc]     [Linux Man Pages]     [Linux API]     [Linux Memory Management]     [Linux Modules]     [Linux Standards]     [Kernel Announce]     [Netdev]     [Git]     [Linux PCI]     Linux CAN Development     [Linux I2C]     [Linux RDMA]     [Linux NUMA]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Devel]     [SELinux]     [Bugtraq]     [FIO]     [Linux Perf Users]     [Linux Serial]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux ISDN]     [Linux Next]     [Kernel Stable Commits]     [Linux Tip Commits]     [Kernel MM Commits]     [Linux Security Module]     [Filesystem Development]     [Ext3 Filesystem]     [Linux bcache]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux CEPH Filesystem]     [Linux XFS]     [XFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux CIFS]     [Ecryptfs]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser FS]     [Initramfs]     [Linux FB Devel]     [Linux OpenGL]     [DRI Devel]     [Fastboot]     [Linux RT Users]     [Linux RT Stable]     [eCos]     [Corosync]     [Linux Clusters]     [LVS Devel]     [Hot Plug]     [Linux Virtualization]     [KVM]     [KVM PPC]     [KVM ia64]     [Linux Containers]     [Linux Hexagon]     [Linux Cgroups]     [Util Linux]     [Wireless]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Bluez Devel]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Embedded Linux]     [Barebox]     [Linux MMC]     [Linux IIO]     [Sparse]     [Smatch]     [Linux Arch]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Linux ACPI]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [LM Sensors]     [CPU Freq]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linmodems]     [Linux DCCP]     [Linux SCTP]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]     [Linux PA RISC]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [MIPS Linux]     [IBM S/390 Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Tegra Devel]     [Sparc Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Sound]     [Linux Media]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux IRDA Users]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux SCSI]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SMP]     [Linux AXP]     [Linux Alpha]     [Linux M68K]     [Linux ia64]     [Linux 8086]     [Linux x86_64]     [Linux Config]     [Linux Apps]     [Linux MSDOS]     [Linux X.25]     [Linux Crypto]     [DM Crypt]     [Linux Trace Users]     [Linux Btrace]     [Linux Watchdog]     [Utrace Devel]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Assembly]     [Dash]     [DWARVES]     [Hail Devel]     [Linux Kernel Debugger]     [Linux gcc]     [Gcc Help]     [X.Org]     [Wine]

Add to Google Powered by Linux

[Older Kernel Discussion]     [Yosemite National Park Forum]     [Large Format Photos]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Stuff]