On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:40 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 01/14, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > Should we just fix whoever is blocking kernel-internal special syscall > > (sys_uretprobe)? > > Well, we can add __NR_uretprobe to mode1_syscalls[] but this won't > really help. > > We can't "fix" the existing user-space setups which can nack any > "unnecessary/unknown" syscall. > > > What would happen if someone blocked that other > > special kernel-internal syscall for signal handling (can't remember > > the name, > > sys_rt_sigreturn(). > > Yes, the task will crash after return from the signal handler if this > syscall is filtered out. > > But, unlike sys_uretprobe(), sys_rt_sigreturn() is old, so the existing > setups must know that sigreturn() should be respected... someday sys_uretprobe will be old as well ;) FWIW, systemd allowlisted sys_uretprobe, see [0] [0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/34615#issuecomment-2406761451 > > Oleg. > >
