On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:43:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I won't really argue, but...
> 
> On 01/24, Gregory Price wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:52:29PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/23, Gregory Price wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So i think dropping 2/3 in the list is good.  If you concur i'll do
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > Well I obviously think that 2/3 should be dropped ;)
> > >
> > > As for 1/3 and 3/3, feel free to add my reviewed-by.
> > >
> > > Oleg.
> > >
> >
> > I'm actually going to walk my agreement back.
> >
> > After one more review, the need for the proc/status entry is not to
> > decide whether to dump SUD settings, but for use in deciding whether to
> > set the SUSPEND_SYSCALL_DISPATCH option from patch 1/3.
> 
> Rather than read /proc/pid/status, CRIU can just do
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG unconditionally
> and check syscall_user_dispatch_config.mode ?
> 
> Why do want to expose SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH in /proc/status? If this task
> is not stopped you can't trust this value anyway. If it is stopped, I don't
> think ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG) is slower than reading
> /proc.
> 
> but perhaps I missed something?
> 
> Oleg.
> 

*facepalm* good point, i'm wondering if there's a reason CRIU doesn't do
the same for SECCOMP.

either way, going to drop it