On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:03:48PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:

在 2024-02-25星期日的 15:32 +0800，Xi Ruoyao写道：

quoted

On Sun, 2024-02-25 at 14:51 +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:

quoted

quoted

From my point of view, I prefer to "restore fstat", because we
need
to
use the Chrome sandbox everyday (even though it hasn't been
upstream
by now). But I also hope "seccomp deep argument inspection" can
be
solved in the future.

My idea is this problem needs syscalls to be designed with deep
argument inspection in mind; syscalls before this should be
considered
as historical error and get fixed by resotring old syscalls.

I'd not consider fstat an error as using statx for fstat has a
performance impact (severe for some workflows), and Linus has
concluded

Sorry for clearance, I mean statx is an error in ABI design, not fstat.

We will not be limited arbitrarly in system call design by seccomp being
unable to do deep argument inspection. That ship has sailed many years
ago. And it's a bit laughable to disalow pointer arguments and structs
in system calls because seccomp isn't able to inspect them.