On Fri, Jul 03 2026 at 09:51, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:05:59PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> - if (secure_computing()) >> + if (!secure_computing()) >> return -1; > > Hello, > > I am not fond of this logic inversion. The boolean is meaningless in > itself. > > Previously -1 was used to indicate that the syscall was filtered but you > chose to invert the logic choosing true to mean syscall was not filtered. > > You could choose true to mean that syscall was fitered avoiding this > inversion.
That's just wrong. Boolean logic makes more sense with having (!condition()). Just because the old 0/-1 nonsense had it the other way round does not mean it has to stay that way. > Sashiko points out some places in existing code where it supposedly > explodes which might or might not be true The vsyscall one is correct, but that's a bug like any other one and should be caught in review. The blurb about bypass is AI halluzination nonsense. > but any in-flight patches that use secure_computing would also be > affected. Maintainers know how to deal with collisions of that kind. Stop making problems up.
