Re: [PATCH v16 01/18] seccomp: Convert __secure_computing() to return boolean
Linus Walleij <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Jul 2026 23:32:21 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-alpha,dev.linux.lists.loongarch,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.infradead.lists.linux-um,org.kernel.vger.linux-csky,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-m68k,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-parisc,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-sh,org.kvack.linux-mm,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAD++jLn0Pfhx0bY9XywVkDVU-nyAbvrnf9Wr8TSkuV4hgJL=8w@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 12:00 PM Mark Rutland <[email protected]> wrote: > Bikeshedding below; sorry. > > I think the bigger problem is just that secure_computing() is a terrible > name that does not express the intended semantic -- it's not clear > whether "secure computing" means "seccomp permit the syscall" or > "seccomp is enabled and some special rules now apply" or something else > entirely. > > If we're changing the return type, it might be worth renaming the > function something like: > > seccomp_permits_syscall() Yeah that's way better, let's do this. (I also had problems with this function!!) Rusty Russel's API design manifesto tells us to do this: https://gist.github.com/mjball/9cd028ac793ae8b351df1379f1e721f9 Yours, Linus Walleij