On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> wrote: > On 09/09/2015 06:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > [...] >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> >> Please do not add any per-instruction hacks. None of them are >> necessary. Classic had to do extra ugly checks in seccomp only >> because verifier wasn't flexible enough. >> If you don't want to see any BPF_CALL in seccomp, just have >> empty get_func_proto() callback for BPF_PROG_TYPE_SECCOMP >> and verifier will reject all calls. >> Currently we have only two non-generic instrucitons >> LD_ABS and LD_IND that are avaialable for sockets/TC only, >> because these are legacy instructions and we had to make >> exceptions for them. > > Yep, +1.
Hrmpf. This adds to the cognitive load for accepting this patch series. :P Now I have to convince myself that there is no additional exposure to seccomp by using the entire set of eBPF instructions. While I'm pretty sure it'll be fine, I really don't want to risk being wrong and opening a hole here. I will spend some time looking at the new eBPF instructions... -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
