On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:39:26PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -828,6 +823,11 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> > > */
> > > rmb();
> > >
> > > + if (!sd) {
> > > + populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local);
> > > + sd = &sd_local;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > To me it would be more clean to remove the "if (!sd)" check, case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE)
> > in __seccomp_filter() can simply do populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local) unconditionally
> > and pass &sd_local to __seccomp_filter().
>
> Ah, please ignore, emulate_vsyscall() does secure_computing(NULL).
>
> Btw. why __seccomp_filter() doesn't return a boolean?
>
> Or at least, why can't case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE) simply do
>
> return __seccomp_filter(this_syscall, NULL, true);
>
> ?
Yeah, at least the second one definitely makes sense. I can add that
as a patch in the next version of this series unless Kees does it
before.
Thanks for your help, Oleg!
Tycho
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
