On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> @@ -828,6 +823,11 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const 
> struct seccomp_data *sd,
>        */
>       rmb();
>  
> +     if (!sd) {
> +             populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local);
> +             sd = &sd_local;
> +     }
> +

To me it would be more clean to remove the "if (!sd)" check, 
case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE)
in __seccomp_filter() can simply do populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local) 
unconditionally
and pass &sd_local to __seccomp_filter().

Oleg.

Reply via email to