On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 11:38:48PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:

Hi,

On 2026-05-16T21:53:17+0100, funsafemath wrote:

quoted

Document SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH flag, which allows to
use SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC and SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER
flags together by returning ESRCH on synchronization error instead
of the thread ID.

<https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200304180517.23867-1-tycho@tycho.ws (local)>
---

Would you mind signing the patch?

quoted

 man/man2/seccomp.2 | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/man/man2/seccomp.2 b/man/man2/seccomp.2
index 75c7b2d58..0729a653c 100644
--- a/man/man2/seccomp.2
+++ b/man/man2/seccomp.2

@@ -241,6 +241,21 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION
 .B SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT
 or if it has attached new seccomp filters to itself,
 diverging from the calling thread's filter tree.
+.TP
+.BR SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH " (since Linux 5.7)"
+.\" commit 51891498f2da78ee64dfad88fa53c9e85fb50abf
+Return
+.B ESRCH

I expect that in user space, we'll see -1 in the return value, and ESRCH
in errno, right?  If so, we should say "Fail with ESRCH ...".

Yes, exactly. Probably worth changing the wording in the commit
message as well.

Tycho