Re: [PATCH] seccomp: Fix syscall skip logic on ptrace

On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> seccomp takes a shortcut here. When the syscall number is re-read after
> ptrace and the sign bit is set in the syscall number the syscall is
> skipped right away.
> 
> This works fairly well on x86 where the return value of the syscall is
> preset before seccomp is processed.
> 
> However, on some architectures the syscall return value overlaps with
> the syscall number or syscall arguments, and as a result the return
> value cannot be preset in advance.
> 
> For these architectures seccomp needs to exit without flagging the
> syscall as skipped. Then processing of invalid syscall number in the
> architecture code should set the return value to -ENOSYS and skip the
> syscall.
> 
> This introduces a change: If the syscall number has the sign bit
> set, such as -1, previously the filter re-check would not be done, not
> applying the filter after trace. Now the re-check is done both for
> syscall nubers with and without sign bit set. This would only make a
> difference if the syscall number or the filter was changed by the
> tracer. Otherwise the filter would be resolved the first time around.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <[email protected]>
> ---
>  kernel/seccomp.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index 066909393c38..9e40a38aaedf 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -1318,11 +1318,8 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const bool recheck_after_trace)
>  		 */
>  		if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>  			goto skip;
> -		/* Check if the tracer forced the syscall to be skipped. */
> -		this_syscall = syscall_get_nr(current, current_pt_regs());
> -		if (this_syscall < 0)
> -			goto skip;
>  
> +		this_syscall = syscall_get_nr(current, current_pt_regs());
>  		/*
>  		 * Recheck the syscall, since it may have changed. This
>  		 * intentionally uses a NULL struct seccomp_data to force

Does the seccomp selftest still pass with this change? I _think_ it's
fine; this just induces more work on a tracer-induced skip path, which,
in theory, shouldn't be fast-path: kicking out to the tracer is going to
be the slowest part.

-- 
Kees Cook