On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:21 -0700, Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 15:13, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > doing a (per arch) bitmap of harmless syscalls and replacing the > > mode1_syscalls[] check with that in kernel/seccomp.c would be a > > pretty reasonable extension. (.config controllable perhaps, for > > old-style-seccomp) > > > > It would probably be faster than the current loop over > > mode1_syscalls[] as well. > > This would be a great option to improve performance of our sandbox. I > can detect the availability of the new kernel API dynamically, and > then not intercept the bulk of the system calls. This would allow the > sandbox to work both with existing and with newer kernels. > > We'll post a kernel patch for discussion in the next few days, > I suspect the correct thing to do would be to leave seccomp mode 1 alone and introduce a mode 2 with a less restricted set of system calls -- the interface was designed to be extended in this way, after all. -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
