On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 9:51 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:10 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 01/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:39:28 +0100
> > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A note for the seccomp maintainers...
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what do you think, but I agree in advance that the very fact this
> > > > patch adds "#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64" into __secure_computing() doesn't look nice.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Indeed. in_ia32_syscall() depends arch/x86 too.
> > > We can add an inline function like;
> > >
> > > ``` uprobes.h
> > > static inline bool is_uprobe_syscall(int syscall)
> > > {
> >
> > We can, and this is what I tried to suggest from the very beginning.
> > But I agree with Eyal who decided to send the most trivial fix for
> > -stable, we can add the helper later.
> >
> > I don't think it should live in uprobes.h and I'd prefer something
> > like arch_seccomp_ignored(int) but I won't insist.
>
> yep, I think this is the way, keeping it as a general category. Should
> we also put rt_sigreturn there explicitly as well? Also, wouldn't it
> be better to have it as a non-arch-specific function for something
> like rt_sigreturn where defining it per each arch is cumbersome, and
> have the default implementation also call into an arch-specific
> function?
I like the more generic approach and keeping CONFIG_X86 out of seccomp,
and more generic than uprobes, however, I'm not sure where a common part
to place it which includes arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h would be. And
as mentioned before, this would make this bugfix more complex to backport.
For that reason I wouldn't refactor handling rt_sigreturn as part of
this fix.
Thanks!
Eyal.
