On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 05:40:38PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> >
> > While the comment is good, let's actually enforce this with:
> >
> > if (WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&filter->notif_lock)))
> > return NULL;
> >
> I don't see much use of lockdep in seccomp (well, any), but
> wouldn't a str
>
> While the comment is good, let's actually enforce this with:
>
> if (WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&filter->notif_lock)))
> return NULL;
>
I don't see much use of lockdep in seccomp (well, any), but
wouldn't a stronger statement be to use lockdep, and just have:
lockdep_assert_held(&filter
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:08:56AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> This adds a helper which can iterate through a seccomp_filter to
> find a notification matching an ID. It removes several replicated
> chunks of code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon
> Cc: Matt Denton
> Cc: Kees Cook ,
> Cc: Jan
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:08:56AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> This adds a helper which can iterate through a seccomp_filter to
> find a notification matching an ID. It removes several replicated
> chunks of code.
Nice, yes. I was noticing this redundancy too while I was looking at
notify locki
This adds a helper which can iterate through a seccomp_filter to
find a notification matching an ID. It removes several replicated
chunks of code.
Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon
Cc: Matt Denton
Cc: Kees Cook ,
Cc: Jann Horn ,
Cc: Robert Sesek ,
Cc: Chris Palmer
Cc: Christian Brauner
Cc: Tycho A
5 matches
Mail list logo