Re: [PATCH 1/2] man/man2/seccomp.2: Document SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH
Tycho Andersen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-man |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 11:38:48PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi, > > On 2026-05-16T21:53:17+0100, funsafemath wrote: > > Document SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH flag, which allows to > > use SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC and SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER > > flags together by returning ESRCH on synchronization error instead > > of the thread ID. > > > > <https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]> > > --- > > Would you mind signing the patch? > > > man/man2/seccomp.2 | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/man/man2/seccomp.2 b/man/man2/seccomp.2 > > index 75c7b2d58..0729a653c 100644 > > --- a/man/man2/seccomp.2 > > +++ b/man/man2/seccomp.2 > > @@ -241,6 +241,21 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION > > .B SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT > > or if it has attached new seccomp filters to itself, > > diverging from the calling thread's filter tree. > > +.TP > > +.BR SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH " (since Linux 5.7)" > > +.\" commit 51891498f2da78ee64dfad88fa53c9e85fb50abf > > +Return > > +.B ESRCH > > I expect that in user space, we'll see -1 in the return value, and ESRCH > in errno, right? If so, we should say "Fail with ESRCH ...". Yes, exactly. Probably worth changing the wording in the commit message as well. Tycho