On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:23:13AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:31 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi > > <krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The amount of syscall entry wiring that arches need to do is IMO > > already a bit out of hand. Should we instead rename TIF_SECCOMP to > > TIF_SYSCALL_INTERCEPTION and have one generic callback that handles > > seccomp and this new thing? > > The right way to go is to consolidate all the stupidly different > entry/exit work handling implementations and have exactly one in generic > code, i.e. what I posted a few days ago. > > Then we can make new features only available in the generic version by > hiding the new functionality in the core code and not exposing the > functions to architecture implementations. > > Making it easy for architectures to keep their own variant forever just > proliferates the mess we have right now. Couldn't agree more. We recently added PTRACE_SYSEMU to arm64 and I deeply regret doing that now that yet another way to rewrite the syscall number has come along. I only just untangled some of the mess in our entry code for that, so I can't say I'm looking forward to opening it right back up to support this new feature. Much better to do it in the core code instead. Will
