Why does do_syscal_user_dispatch call do_exit(SIGSEGV) and
do_exit(SIGSYS) instead of force_sig(SIGSEGV) and force_sig(SIGSYS)?

Looking at the code these cases are not expected to happen, so I would
be surprised if userspace depends on any particular behaviour on the
failure path so I think we can change this.

Is using do_exit in this way something you copied from seccomp?

The reason I am asking is that by using do_exit you deprive userspace
of the change to catch the signal handler and try and fix things.

Also by using do_exit only a single thread of a multi-thread application
is terminated which seems wrong.

I am asking because I am going through the callers of do_exit so I can
refactor things and clean things up and this use just looks wrong.

Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [off-list ref] writes:

<snip>

+bool do_syscall_user_dispatch(struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+	struct syscall_user_dispatch *sd = &current->syscall_dispatch;
+	char state;
+
+	if (likely(instruction_pointer(regs) - sd->offset < sd->len))
+		return false;
+
+	if (unlikely(arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn(regs)))
+		return false;
+
+	if (likely(sd->selector)) {
+		/*
+		 * access_ok() is performed once, at prctl time, when
+		 * the selector is loaded by userspace.
+		 */
+		if (unlikely(__get_user(state, sd->selector)))
+			do_exit(SIGSEGV);

                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think it makes more sense if the code does:

		if (unlikely(__get_user(state, sd->selector))) {
                	force_sig(SIGSEGV);
                        return true;
                }

+
+		if (likely(state == PR_SYS_DISPATCH_OFF))
+			return false;
+
+		if (state != PR_SYS_DISPATCH_ON)
+			do_exit(SIGSYS);

                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+	}
+
+	sd->on_dispatch = true;
+	syscall_rollback(current, regs);
+	trigger_sigsys(regs);
+
+	return true;
+}

Eric