On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Mickaël Salaün <m...@digikod.net> wrote: > Could someone push this please? > > On 20/09/2016 19:39, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >> Fix struct seccomp_filter and seccomp_run_filters() signatures. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <m...@digikod.net> >> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> Cc: James Morris <jmor...@namei.org> >> Cc: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> >> Cc: Will Drewry <w...@chromium.org>
Ah, sorry, this got lost in my inbox. :) Acked-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> -Kees >> --- >> kernel/seccomp.c | 7 +++---- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c >> index 0db7c8a2afe2..494cba230ca0 100644 >> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c >> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c >> @@ -41,8 +41,7 @@ >> * outside of a lifetime-guarded section. In general, this >> * is only needed for handling filters shared across tasks. >> * @prev: points to a previously installed, or inherited, filter >> - * @len: the number of instructions in the program >> - * @insnsi: the BPF program instructions to evaluate >> + * @prog: the BPF program to evaluate >> * >> * seccomp_filter objects are organized in a tree linked via the @prev >> * pointer. For any task, it appears to be a singly-linked list starting >> @@ -168,8 +167,8 @@ static int seccomp_check_filter(struct sock_filter >> *filter, unsigned int flen) >> } >> >> /** >> - * seccomp_run_filters - evaluates all seccomp filters against @syscall >> - * @syscall: number of the current system call >> + * seccomp_run_filters - evaluates all seccomp filters against @sd >> + * @sd: optional seccomp data to be passed to filters >> * >> * Returns valid seccomp BPF response codes. >> */ >> > -- Kees Cook Nexus Security
