On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [applies on jmorris's security-next tree] >> >> This is both a cleanup and a speedup. It reduces overhead due to >> installing a trivial seccomp filter by 87%. The speedup comes from >> avoiding the full syscall tracing mechanism for filters that don't >> return SECCOMP_RET_TRACE. >> >> This series works by splitting the seccomp hooks into two phases. >> The first phase evaluates the filter; it can skip syscalls, allow >> them, kill the calling task, or pass a u32 to the second phase. The >> second phase requires a full tracing context, and it sends ptrace >> events if necessary. >> >> Once this is done, I implemented a similar split for the x86 syscall >> entry work. The C callback is invoked in two phases: the first has >> only a partial frame, and it can request phase 2 processing with a >> full frame. >> >> Finally, I switch the 64-bit system_call code to use the new split >> entry work. This is a net deletion of assembly code: it replaces >> all of the audit entry muck. >> >> In the process, I fixed some bugs. >> >> If this is acceptable, someone can do the same tweak for the >> ia32entry and entry_32 code. >> >> This passes all seccomp tests that I know of. Now that it's properly >> rebased, even the previously expected failures are gone. >> >> Kees, if you like this version, can you create a branch with patches >> 1-4? I think that the rest should go into tip/x86 once everyone's happy >> with it. >> >> Changes from v2: >> - Fixed 32-bit x86 build (and the tests pass). >> - Put the doc patch where it belongs. > > Thanks! This looks good to me. I'll add it to my tree. > > Peter, how do you feel about this series? Do the x86 changes look good to you? > It looks like patches 1-4 have landed here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath hpa, what's the route forward for the x86 part? --Andy
