From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556213DFC84
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:50:06 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1776268207; cv=none; b=fDf3BRAprwFIyGRrxNv2WsZOCoAq5L6vVBAx52erA2SgtetnrD4DcNbjoooWG/+BKtyJMih38yQyy9QAJL6yvUi5bp3TDCEhpMzDwQBAHiHegNiuDBATUIG2KeHD1HjXiAyd54upnzvJt5tntIm7tWP6xc2LinMAEBftiP3HWQE=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1776268207; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=FFxfyaqZXoprTDZ+PFKm60iCAdXRwD/UphjlevtwvO4=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EML+MX7QM7GRRBROMux0lvoSUTd39DhAOv5SxMVgwxrjZpe+2zQKbSCs4HIbvfIbxSrLMSyEEztOTCeNg7ru1IjONRIuyrI63Z2Qp1QIMlTyCG8oz6lr0i/uZTsjQz4VlLG8LAKkz8x1Er35poRczZtwuLT5bC9b6g8iOL5l93c=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ml11fgjD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ml11fgjD"
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 917E8C19424;
	Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:50:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1776268206;
	bh=FFxfyaqZXoprTDZ+PFKm60iCAdXRwD/UphjlevtwvO4=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=ml11fgjDDXgKUvog3CfLWBXFwJ9hJBX+hiNBVstYbF/juv+jr3NYsBVDFboLDebZj
	 rMqIi6NJNWBxBpPG9/+XBUKBplDFq7vSIfncNCEU20cNxS8L8I/7IZ6+SoxjlhtEYC
	 eqMwlCf/gNjTOIdEStAKw6NUhJabO8NcYmPz3+X1bWW8IsJxApr+BH0kCQeg5hFVxS
	 PWu2rIhnDsKXV83OM3tE5N7Rx5VljDz+V4wcS4ByE/gI+i/FKm7T/I8w3/UnA0/kqi
	 qtfQunNt7KMPFEcs3bDXw5yRF+Z1U0b5RkMh7ohMdjIAwdSe9l8rotuJh+CdpRBzsc
	 7nstFLctnYTgA==
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:50:06 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
	Kusaram Devineni <kusaram@devineni.in>,
	Max Ver <dudududumaxver@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] seccomp: defer syscall_rollback() to get_signal()
Message-ID: <202604150848.0DA98133@keescook>
References: <ad5voOrbqayQBgNk@redhat.com>
 <ad5v1J7bosR88z7b@redhat.com>
 <202604141026.4BEA64A4@keescook>
 <ad58U8BRYMiW5rCk@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ad58U8BRYMiW5rCk@redhat.com>

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 07:41:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes sure. but do you agree with this RFC approach?

I like it so far; I'm going to run the rr regression tests to
double-check.

> See also 0/2. Perhaps SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_XXX makes more sense?

This _feels_ like a more complex solution, but I'll study it more.

> And just in case... I ran tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf, it
> doesn't show any regression.

Great!

-- 
Kees Cook