On 01/17, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:10 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 personally don't think we should exclude rt_sigreturn. and I guess we can't do it in a arch-agnostic way, think of __NR_ia32_sigreturn. However. These are all good questions that need a separate discussion. Plus the SECCOMP_RET_TRACE/strace issue raised by Dmitry. And probably even more. But IMO it would be better to push the trivial (and urgent) fix to -stable first, then discuss the possible cleanups/improvements. What do you think? Oleg.
