On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:43:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I won't really argue, but... > > On 01/24, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:52:29PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 01/23, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > > > > > So i think dropping 2/3 in the list is good. If you concur i'll do > > > > that. > > > > > > Well I obviously think that 2/3 should be dropped ;) > > > > > > As for 1/3 and 3/3, feel free to add my reviewed-by. > > > > > > Oleg. > > > > > > > I'm actually going to walk my agreement back. > > > > After one more review, the need for the proc/status entry is not to > > decide whether to dump SUD settings, but for use in deciding whether to > > set the SUSPEND_SYSCALL_DISPATCH option from patch 1/3. > > Rather than read /proc/pid/status, CRIU can just do > PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG unconditionally > and check syscall_user_dispatch_config.mode ? > > Why do want to expose SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH in /proc/status? If this task > is not stopped you can't trust this value anyway. If it is stopped, I don't > think ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG) is slower than reading > /proc. > > but perhaps I missed something? > > Oleg. > *facepalm* good point, i'm wondering if there's a reason CRIU doesn't do the same for SECCOMP. either way, going to drop it
