Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF

[Eric Paris]

On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:38 -0600, Will Drewry wrote:

> diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> index cc7a4e9..0296871 100644
> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h

> -typedef struct { int mode; } seccomp_t;
> +struct seccomp_filter;
> +/**
> + * struct seccomp_struct - the state of a seccomp'ed process
> + *
> + * @mode:
> + *     if this is 0, seccomp is not in use.
> + *             is 1, the process is under standard seccomp rules.
> + *             is 2, the process is only allowed to make system calls where
> + *                   associated filters evaluate successfully.
> + * @filter: Metadata for filter if using CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER.
> + *          @filter must only be accessed from the context of current as there
> + *          is no guard.
> + */
> +typedef struct seccomp_struct {
> +	int mode;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
> +	struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> +#endif
> +} seccomp_t;
>  
>  extern void __secure_computing(int);
>  static inline void secure_computing(int this_syscall)

Can we get rid of all of the typedef stuff?  I know you didn't add it
but now seems like a good time to follow typical kernel semantics if you
have to re-rev for some other reason.

-Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/