From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <ak@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31])
	by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
	(Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <ak@linux.intel.com>)
	id 1fEFVk-0003Ql-BR
	for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 03 May 2018 16:47:09 +0200
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 07:47:04 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH SSBv11 0/3] seccomp 1
Message-ID: <20180503144704.GW75137@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <cover.1525308267.git.keescook@chromium.org>
 <20180503122914.GV75137@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1805031438330.1672@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1805031438330.1672@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: speck@linutronix.de
List-ID: <speck.linutronix.de>

> Telling people: "We have this shiny new prtcl and your browser will
> eventually use it but until then you're on your own." is just bullshit.

No the browsers will not need to use the prctl. 

The browser will turn on process site isolation (e.g. in Chrome it is already
a config option) then it doesn't need the prctl because leaking data
inside a process doesn't matter.

And the browsers were actually the main target for this. But if they
don't need it it doesn't make that much sense frankly.

For many other programs it is actually awkward to use because they haven't
been enabled for seccomp yet. For those the plain prctl is better.

So essentially you just slow down the browsers for no gain.

-Andi