Hi,

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

Would you mind signing the patch?

>  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 ...".

> +instead of the thread ID on synchronization failure if
> +.B  SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC

Spurious double space.  s/  / /


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> +was specified.
> +.IP
> +If this flag is not set, using
> +.B SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER
> +and
> +.B SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC
> +flags together results in
> +.BR EINVAL .
>  .RE
>  .TP
>  .BR SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL " (since Linux 4.14)"
> -- 
> 2.52.0
> 



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>