Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without filtering

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 01/17, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:10 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > We can, and this is what I tried to suggest from the very beginning.
> > But I agree with Eyal who decided to send the most trivial fix for
> > -stable, we can add the helper later.
> >
> > I don't think it should live in uprobes.h and I'd prefer something
> > like arch_seccomp_ignored(int) but I won't insist.
>
> yep, I think this is the way, keeping it as a general category. Should
> we also put rt_sigreturn there explicitly as well? Also, wouldn't it
> be better to have it as a non-arch-specific function for something
> like rt_sigreturn where defining it per each arch is cumbersome, and
> have the default implementation also call into an arch-specific
> function?

I personally don't think we should exclude rt_sigreturn. and I guess
we can't do it in a arch-agnostic way, think of __NR_ia32_sigreturn.

However. These are all good questions that need a separate discussion.
Plus the SECCOMP_RET_TRACE/strace issue raised by Dmitry. And probably
even more.

But IMO it would be better to push the trivial (and urgent) fix to
-stable first, then discuss the possible cleanups/improvements.

What do you think?

Oleg.