On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:00:11AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 03 2026 at 09:51, Michal Suchánek wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:05:59PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:

quoted

-	if (secure_computing())
+	if (!secure_computing())
 		return -1;

Hello,

I am not fond of this logic inversion. The boolean is meaningless in
itself.

Previously -1 was used to indicate that the syscall was filtered but you
chose to invert the logic choosing true to mean syscall was not filtered.

You could choose true to mean that syscall was fitered avoiding this
inversion.

That's just wrong. Boolean logic makes more sense with having
(!condition()). Just because the old 0/-1 nonsense had it the other way
round does not mean it has to stay that way.

100% agreed!

Bikeshedding below; sorry.

I think the bigger problem is just that secure_computing() is a terrible
name that does not express the intended semantic -- it's not clear
whether "secure computing" means "seccomp permit the syscall" or
"seccomp is enabled and some special rules now apply" or something else
entirely.

If we're changing the return type, it might be worth renaming the
function something like:

	seccomp_permits_syscall()

Then not only it is clear which way the boolean value should be
interpreted, it also pervents the accidental inversion of existing
calls. Overall great.

Thanks

Michal