[PATCH v16 01/18] seccomp: Convert __secure_computing() to return boolean

[Kevin Brodsky]

On 03/07/2026 12:27, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:00:11AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 100% agreed!
>>
>> Bikeshedding below; sorry.
>>
>> I think the bigger problem is just that secure_computing() is a terrible
>> name that does not express the intended semantic -- it's not clear
>> whether "secure computing" means "seccomp permit the syscall" or
>> "seccomp is enabled and some special rules now apply" or something else
>> entirely.
>>
>> If we're changing the return type, it might be worth renaming the
>> function something like:
>>
>> 	seccomp_permits_syscall()
> Then not only it is clear which way the boolean value should be
> interpreted, it also pervents the accidental inversion of existing
> calls. Overall great.

Totally agreed, if we have the opportunity to rename a completely
undescriptive function name like "secure_computing" we should take it.

- Kevin