On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:14:04AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:47:24AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:07:03PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, bpf's union looks good. Let's add a "command" flag, though: > > > > > > seccomp(SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER_EBPF, int cmd, union, size); > > > > > > And this cmd could be ADD_FD or something? > > > > > > How's that look? > > > > I think we can drop the size (using the same strategy as bpf() and > > checking for zeroes at the end), and keep the same signature for > > seccomp(); so: > > > > seccomp(SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER_EBPF, SECCOMP_ADD_BPF_FD, &union) > > > > Yes, I'll use this in the next version. > > actually bpf() has size as the last argument: > SYSCALL_DEFINE3(bpf, int, cmd, union bpf_attr __user *, uattr, unsigned int, size) > perf_event_open() doesn't and size is embedded as one of the fields. > Both approaches are equivally powerfull from extensitiblity > point of view. My preference was to keep size as an explicit > argument. Yep, sorry that was poorly written. I meant keeping the size as a member of the struct as Michael originally suggested, mostly to avoid having to change the signature of seccomp(). Tycho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
