Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without filtering
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date: 2025-01-18 15:05:49
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, lkml, stable
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date: 2025-01-18 15:05:49
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, lkml, stable
On 01/17, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:10 AM Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
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.