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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.