Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
Makes sense. I will drop it for the next iteration. Thanks!
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
