On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 02:58:06PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > In preparation for adding seccomp locking, move filter creation away > from where it is checked and applied. This will allow for locking where > no memory allocation is happening. The validation, filter attachment, > and seccomp mode setting can all happen under the future locks. > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/seccomp.c | 97 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c > index afb916c7e890..edc8c79ed16d 100644 > --- a/kernel/seccomp.c > +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c > @@ -515,6 +551,7 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode(unsigned long seccomp_mode, > char __user *filter) > current->seccomp.mode = seccomp_mode; > set_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP); > out: > + seccomp_filter_free(prepared); > return ret; > }
I think this needs to be inside #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER to match the definition of seccomp_filter_free: ../kernel/seccomp.c:554:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘seccomp_filter_free’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
