On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41:59AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:49 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 03:19:09PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > While touching seccomp code I realized that the struct seccomp_data
> > > argument to secure_computing() seems to be unused by all current
> > > callers. So let's remove it unless there is some subtlety I missed.
> > > Note, I only tested this on x86.
> >
> > What was amluto thinking in
> >
> > 2f275de5d1ed ("seccomp: Add a seccomp_data parameter secure_computing()")
>
> IIRC there was a period of time in which x86 used secure_computing()
> for normal syscalls, and it was a good deal faster to have the arch
> code supply seccomp_data. x86 no longer works like this, and syscalls
> aren't fast anymore ayway :(
I started looking at this and actually had a slightly bigger cleanup in
mind. It seems odd that we have secure_computing() and
__secure_computing(). Especially in the mips and x86 case. From what I
can tell they could both rely on secure_computing() and don't need
__secure_computing().
If I can make those changes, we can make __secure_computing() static and
have only a single function secure_computing() that is used by all
arches which would make this code simpler.
Apparenly mips once switched from secure_computing() to
__secure_computing() because of bpf and tracepoints. The last change to
this was:
commit 3d729deaf287c43e415c5d791c9ac8414dbeff70
Author: James Hogan <jhogan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Aug 11 21:56:50 2017 +0100
MIPS: seccomp: Fix indirect syscall args
which references a broken samples/bpf/tracex5 test. But in the thread to
this last change Kees and others were less than sure that this makes
sense. So I'm not sure. Maybe I should just try and send it out...
Christian
