[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1efc7e3c78a7fea31a954c51aea1fd82e2041714.camel@mihalicyn.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 20:01:43 +0100
From: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Alexander Mikhalitsyn
<alexander@...alicyn.com>
Cc: kees@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...capital.net>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Jonathan Corbet
<corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tycho Andersen
<tycho@...ho.pizza>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, Christian Brauner
<brauner@...nel.org>, Stéphane Graber
<stgraber@...raber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] seccomp: keep track of seccomp filters with
closed listeners
On Wed, 2026-01-21 at 13:20 +0100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2025-12-11, Alexander Mikhalitsyn
> <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com> wrote:
> > Let's distinguish seccomp filters with closed listener
> > vs seccomp filters which never had listener.
> >
> > We can easily do this by using the same ->notif pointer
> > field with help of IS_ERR_OR_NULL().
> >
> > No functional change intended.
>
> The discussion we had at LPC made me think this would result in a
> (justifiable) functional change to fix this bug, but you're quite
> right
> that this only matters once you enable nested listeners.
>
> In either case, feel free to take my
>
> Reviewed-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Thanks, Aleksa ;)
Kind regards,
Alex
>
> Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists