On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:59:49AM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:31:39PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> >> index afe01e232935..3511c98a7849 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> >> @@ -959,7 +959,11 @@ struct task_struct {
> >> kuid_t loginuid;
> >> unsigned int sessionid;
> >> #endif
> >> - struct seccomp seccomp;
> >> +
> >> + struct {
> >> + unsigned int syscall_intercept;
> >> + struct seccomp seccomp;
> >> + };
> >
> > If there's no specific reason to do this I'd not wrap this in an
> > anonymous struct. It doesn't really buy anything and there doesn't seem
> > to be precedent in struct task_struct right now. Also, if this somehow
> > adds padding it seems you might end up increasing the size of struct
> > task_struct more than necessary by accident? (I might be wrong
> > though.)
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thanks for your review on this and on the other patches of this series.
>
> I wrapped these to prevent struct layout randomization from separating
> the flags field from seccomp, as they are going to be used together and
> I was trying to reduce overhead to seccomp entry due to two cache misses
> when reading this structure. Measuring it seccomp_benchmark didn't show
> any difference with the unwrapped version, so perhaps it was a bit of
> premature optimization?
That should not be a thing to think about here. Structure randomization
already has a mode to protect against cache line issues. I would leave
this as just a new member; no wrapping struct.
--
Kees Cook
