Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:19PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> I think due to the given insns restrictions on classic seccomp, this
> could work for "most cases" (see below) for the time being until pointer
> sanitation is resolved and that seccomp-only restriction from the dump
> could be removed,
Ok, thanks.
> BUT there's one more stone in the road which you still
> need to take care of with this whole 'giving classic seccomp-BPF -> eBPF
> transforms an fd, dumping and restoring that via bpf(2)' approach:
>
> If you have JIT enabled on ARM32, and add a classic seccomp-BPF filter,
> and dump that via your bpf(2) interface based on the current patches, what
> you'll get is not eBPF opcodes but classic (!) BPF opcodes as ARM32 classic
> JIT supports compilation of seccomp, since commit 24e737c1ebac ("ARM: net:
> add JIT support for loads from struct seccomp_data.").
>
> So in that case, bpf_prepare_filter() will not call into bpf_migrate_filter()
> as there's simply no need for it, because the classic code could already
> be JITed there. I guess other archs where JIT support for eBPF in not yet
> within near sight might sooner or later support this insn for their classic
> JITs, too ...
Thanks for pointing this out.
What if we legislate that the output of bpf(BPF_PROG_DUMP, ...) is
always eBPF? As near as I can tell there is no way to determine if a
struct bpf_prog is classic or eBPF, so we'd need to add a bit to
indicate whether or not the prog has been converted so that
BPF_PROG_DUMP knows when to convert it.
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
