Re: [uml-user] Could UML run via seccomp traps instead of ptrace?
Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> Mon, 22 May 2017 10:27:00 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.uml.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAFLxGvyj8iDw2c=j+x7RGp5e99Ms0X0tBZAZ4KOa5WoBywXU0g@mail.gmail.com> |
Dan, On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Dan Kaminsky <[email protected]> wrote: > The thinking is we'd add another SECCOMP_RET type, such that UML didn't need > to depend on ptrace. Ptrace isn't the fastest mechanism, and beyond that, > if we can avoid it it's a lot easier to syscall firewall UML as a whole (and > freeze/restore it with CRIU). Beside of PTRACE_SYSEMU UML also needs ptrace() for ton of other things, i.e. register read/restore or copy_from/to_user(). So, we won't get rid of ptrace() completely. I'm not sure whether switching from PTRACE_SYSEMU to seccomp will speed things up. Do you have some numbers? -- Thanks, //richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot