Re: [PATCH 1/2] man/man2/seccomp.2: Document SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH

[Tycho Andersen <tycho@kernel.org>]

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

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

Tycho