Hi Tycho,

On 2026-05-18T08:04:40-0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> 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.

Thanks!  I've amended the commit message while applying v2.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> 
> Tycho

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