> On Jul 23, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:47:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> I don't love this whole concept, but I also don't have a better idea. > > Are we really talking about changing the kernel because BPF is expecting > things? That is, did we just elevate everything BPF can observe to ABI? > No, this isn’t about internals in the kernel mode sense. It’s about the smallish number of cases where the kernel causes user code to do a specific syscall and the user has a policy that doesn’t allow that syscall. This is visible to user code via seccomp and ptrace. Yes, it’s obnoxious. Do you have any suggestions?
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks seccomp-enabled u... Kees Cook
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks seccomp-enab... Thomas Gleixner
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks seccomp-... Kees Cook
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks secc... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks ... Kees Cook
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO br... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDS... Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic... Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDS... Kees Cook
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic... Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic... Thomas Gleixner
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic... Kees Cook
- Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic... Thomas Gleixner