Re: [patch 11/18] seccomp, treewide: Rename and convert __secure_computing() to return boolean
Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-arch,dev.linux.lists.loongarch,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.infradead.lists.linux-snps-arc,org.infradead.lists.linux-um,org.kernel.vger.linux-alpha,org.kernel.vger.linux-csky,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-hexagon,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-m68k,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-openrisc,org.kernel.vger.linux-parisc,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-sh,org.kernel.vger.sparclinux,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <87pl0xqhh6.ffs@fw13> |
On Wed, Jul 08 2026 at 18:04, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/08, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 08 2026 at 09:43, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> > >> > The return value of __seccomp_filter is checked in the wrong way, check >> > -1 should be replaced with check false, maybe: >> > >> > - if (__seccomp_filter(this_syscall, true)) >> > - return -1; >> > + if (!__seccomp_filter(this_syscall, true)) >> > + return false; > > Or simply > > return __seccomp_filter(this_syscall, true); > > and remove "return true" below ? Duh. Obvious now that you point it out :) > Either way, I personally like this change, I was always confused by these -1's. Welcome to the club!