On Thu, 05 Dec 2024 22:54:21 +0900, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-12-05 at 22:51 +0900, Hajime Tazaki wrote: > > > > > > I don't understand why this behaves differently with and without > > > zpoline, it seems it shouldn't need to. Anyway, still think zpoline is > > > future work. > > > > I will remove the zpoline part. > > When zpoline is used, SIGSYS signal is a sign of unexpected syscall > > invocation, and raise this signal to userspace (with printing > > message). > > > > But why? We already established that zpoline cannot translate > everything, e.g. JIT code and similar. So even if you have zpoline you > can just have seccomp handle the syscall as a fallback, to catch cases > like that rather than failing, no?
You have better understandings on this part than me; yes the fallback option should be the way to go. thanks, -- Hajime
