From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7D1C388CD for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8D021D7F for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="EgkGa/BE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727028AbgJMAb1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:31:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47548 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726564AbgJMAb1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:31:27 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x443.google.com (mail-pf1-x443.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::443]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E29C0613D0; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x443.google.com with SMTP id e7so6361088pfn.12; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:31:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RXZNvLUHIPZhcUjRnKBWUfl+DzXXg5MXS7WMTuKeZqY=; b=EgkGa/BElavLOO5do8aI/LDI65T4SLmDW8j8GtvnCsMqRBTuzcnVjgwuSdSDywqjvi 68gLb90unNImwgG+pg5B/c302jrN06h2wiOsbrS6lxh8EQjYlmK7IUQnSGU/kv2q8QG+ EWOBIoZOyIobyfZvWYXKxuZwSKTVUMEXBgX4ZSAm7NcGssu/qudmnUEzxRGMANa3Lou5 MjTF8Aw/QRattq1J+RTgiH8N7u0DTN9vVgQp0Ylvdjn8NkAptoEbXZ5eu6oXV79TtK/9 bHTxA8tUDVroDUdUEZK0RaWfRT1RH5IBbwfF+F6lF8u/pZVT/m/Yzov79xfTFFBkwVbg PhPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RXZNvLUHIPZhcUjRnKBWUfl+DzXXg5MXS7WMTuKeZqY=; b=h0fCnwrb3Y6jDD9yEabwzibnpPIuzU1L0jCRqE0jKv6y5GEkDz1bGAKLzpX9jBWz0l C5HIHLT4wW99G27KFaDUr8qpOKqRbzzkRArn0n/tcLWVwZ26uTfbOeNndveUgIWglAJ4 /Nlfhib3lRkRE/G5kwwvLyllF1rZtqDBEyQNJY9ttUVSPEzGJyzfsvNnuOygf3DRWhoW pfQUyyHwN3J9f0xMpUFGwDjESx8BC9gkGvpsCFGnsMtzdEOWOEMe4B1tpEcsa3F/fPuW E+J3IBrqU8007SfySQpU8QMtvQucIu+d71AY/4NDKSA55JLGO7PhQwt90v27ZkqsF1Ag aGzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305oUzY+mcHMr64wylcS1psWmiaq4avncJJH+qwaxEkm/0QNWTg H0lrBw7ampNDyG1WLbB7RNunKh/GEJRGG59mZJ4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwg5QbybFtaIctqSCgVoJcBwsMrZ8yltrreNaMkzpkUU1M8W2QrCl9Pfc1cKWvkAdOBW1KhWVjQhmcp1iD+GHE= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8d4c:0:b029:150:f692:4129 with SMTP id s12-20020aa78d4c0000b0290150f6924129mr25657902pfe.11.1602549086984; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:31:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202010091613.B671C86@keescook> <202010121556.1110776B83@keescook> In-Reply-To: <202010121556.1110776B83@keescook> From: YiFei Zhu Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:31:16 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 seccomp 5/5] seccomp/cache: Report cache data through /proc/pid/seccomp_cache To: Kees Cook Cc: Linux Containers , YiFei Zhu , bpf , kernel list , Aleksa Sarai , Andrea Arcangeli , Andy Lutomirski , David Laight , Dimitrios Skarlatos , Giuseppe Scrivano , Hubertus Franke , Jack Chen , Jann Horn , Josep Torrellas , Tianyin Xu , Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum , Tycho Andersen , Valentin Rothberg , Will Drewry Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:57 PM Kees Cook wrote: > I think it's fine to just have this "dangle" with a help text update of > "if seccomp action caching is supported by the architecture, provide the > /proc/$pid ..." I think it would be weird if someone sees this help text and wonder... "hmm does my architecture support seccomp action caching" and without a clear pointer to how seccomp action cache works, goes and compiles the kernel with this config option on for the purpose of knowing if their arch supports it... Or, is it a common practice in the kernel to leave dangling configs? YiFei Zhu