[PATCH v3 0/8] Two-phase seccomp and x86 tracing changes

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote:
> On 07/28/2014 04:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2014 04:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/23/2014 12:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like patches 1-4 have landed here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hpa, what's the route forward for the x86 part?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I should discuss this with Kees to figure out what makes most
>>>>> sense.  In the meantime, could you address Oleg's question?
>>>>
>>>> Since the x86 parts depend on the seccomp parts, I'm happy if you
>>>> carry them instead of having them land from my tree. Otherwise I'm
>>>> open to how to coordinate timing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean for me to carry the seccomp part as well?
>>
>> If that makes sense as far as the coordination, that's fine with me.
>> Otherwise I'm not sure how x86 can build without having the seccomp
>> changes in your tree.
>>
>
> Exactly.  What I guess I'll do is set up a separate tip branch for this,
> pull your branch into it, and then put the x86 patches on top.  Does
> that make sense for everyone?

Sounds good to me. Once Oleg and Andy are happy, we'll be set.

-Kees


-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security