Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Q: enable seccomp notify for API level 5, linux kernel 5.6 and below #88

Closed
utam0k opened this issue Feb 11, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Comments

@utam0k
Copy link

utam0k commented Feb 11, 2022

Hi, seccomp team. First of all, Thanks for maintaining a great library.

As the title says, is it possible to make seccomp notify available for API level 5, linux kernel 5.6 and below?
I think it would be possible by providing an interface to change the TSYNC settings.
fc02980

If you don't mind, I'd like to tryit.

@rata
Copy link
Contributor

rata commented Feb 23, 2022

@utam0k when we added support for seccomp notify here, it was requested by @pcmoore to not provide that option. The original patch did support it, but it was considered that it is just too easy to misuse, so we removed it. See the discussion here: #59 (comment)

Just providing some context, I'll let the maintainers answer the question :)

@pcmoore pcmoore changed the title Enable seccomp notify for API level 5, linux kernel 5.6 and below Q: enable seccomp notify for API level 5, linux kernel 5.6 and below Feb 23, 2022
@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Feb 24, 2022

Hi @utam0k, @rata provided a good link back to our earlier discussions around this and I still stand by that decision.

There are some challenges here due to how golang manages threads as well as how the Linux Kernel initially implemented libseccomp notifications, and I believe the best we can do is withhold notification support on kernels that don't support libseccomp's API level 6.

If you really wanted to try it, you could always modify a local clone of the golang bindings and install that on your system but please understand that's not something we can support upstream.

@pcmoore
Copy link
Member

pcmoore commented Feb 25, 2022

I'm going to close this issue as I think my last response answers the question, but if you feel otherwise please go ahead and reopen this issue - thanks!

@pcmoore pcmoore closed this as completed Feb 25, 2022
@utam0k
Copy link
Author

utam0k commented Feb 27, 2022

@pcmoore @rata I'm sorry for my late reply. Thanks for your comments. I got it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants